Building trust for your church

[prisonchaplain]

Several strings of late touch on the issue of how the public perceives the LDS faith. Polygamy, Prop. 8, continuing revelation, just how perfect the Prophet is suppose to be, and the recent FAIR conference, which highlighted a rather weak public regard for LDS. My branch of Christianity faced similar negativity in its early years. Many regarded pentcostals as cultish, arrogant (we called ourselves "full gospel"--so others weren't???), crazy (speaking gibberish and rolling in the aisles), and perhaps even demonic. In our case, we succeeded in becoming mainstream evangelical--so much so that most churches sing our songs, lift their hands, and speak freely about "sensing the presence of God." Has this acceptance come at a cost? Perhaps. As evanglicalism has embraced some of the trappings of pentcostal worship, many of our pentecostal churches have lost their distinctive flavor, and become mostly evangelical in practice. Therein lies the danger--the more acceptable you become, the less "special" or "restored" you are.

At this site I see posters who almost seem willing to define LDS teachings in evangelical phrasing. Others want little to do with it, and prefer to herald the Restoration, Eternal Marriage, the possiblity of literally becoming gods, etc. Some believe gaining a measure of acceptance from fellow Christians is highly desirable, while others seem concerned that in so doing, the distinctiveness of the LDS faith will be watered down.

THOUGHTS?

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that distinctiveness per se is really a goal of the LDS Church. What matters to us is a) maintaining the priesthood authority we claim to possess (exclusively), and b) teaching true doctrine, whatever that truth may be.

As to doctrine: I think there are two factors at work here.

First, increased dialogue between Mormons and Protestants is leading us to the conclusion that in some respects we've been saying the same thing for decades--just using different terminology. I think, by-and-large, the LDS Church leadership has no problem ditching Mormon-jargon in favor of more universally-understood terms, if it helps us get our message across (or at least minimize misunderstandings).

Second - and this is probably going to sound very smug and condescending (for which I apologize): as you already know, Mormonism teaches three levels of heaven, and (this is a bit of an over-simplification) we believe that mainstream Christianity is enough to get you into the middle (terrestrial) level. Mormonism's doctrinal innovations are (we think) the basis for a sort of "advanced" relationship with Christ which allows adherents to progress into the highest (celestial) level.

In a society that lives a terrestrial law, our missionaries can focus on celestial law (as we've done, really, for most of our history). But increasingly our society struggles even with basic Christian (terrestrial) precepts, and so to some degree our outreach is embracing a "back to basics" model that is going to sound a lot like what y'all have been teaching for centuries.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

Maybe in losing the characteristic of "perculiarity", the LDS church might gain a more "unity" type characteristic amongst other Christian denominations.

M.

[UrbanFool]

What would be evangelical phrasing?

[bytor2112]

Maybe in losing the characteristic of "perculiarity", the LDS church might gain a more "unity" type characteristic amongst other Christian denominations.

M.

Suggestions? ( and the Lord's people are a peculiar people)

[Suzie]

Maybe in losing the characteristic of "perculiarity", the LDS church might gain a more "unity" type characteristic amongst other Christian denominations.

M.

It has been happening for a while now...more and more mainstream and less and less "peculiar".

[SanctitasDeo]

It has been happening for a while now...more and more mainstream and less and less "peculiar".

Has it? I would say less peculiar perhaps, but definitely not more mainstream. I suppose if one considers the presence of members in all strata of society to be mainstream, then that is true. Though mormons are still not electable (to the presidency, anyway).

[Maureen]

Suggestions? ( and the Lord's people are a peculiar people)

Terminology might be one - communion/sacrament, ward/congregation. Maybe some type of terminology thesauras could be created.

M.

[Maureen]

Also, more Mormons are more interested in being known as Christian. In the '70's it was a badge of honor to be seperate from the Christian world and to be thought of as Mormon.

M.

[Vanhin]

It still is a badge of honor for us to be who we are, and we are separated from the rest of the Christian world in many fundamental ways.

However, it ever was a falsehood for opponents of our Church to claim that we are not "Christians", as in disciples of Christ, or that we worship a different Jesus, not the God of the Bible.

That is what we as a Church are responding to. We're not trying to be more mainstream. We are responding to the criticism that we are not "Christians". We are in very deed Christians!

Also, we have always shared a common morality with other Christians. Values such as family, honesty, faith, hard work, and virtue, to rattle of a few, have always been a part of this Church and shared by other Christians. So what are we supposedly doing different?

The Church as a whole is engaged in embracing truth - pure truth. We do focus on orthodoxy more these days than perhaps in earlier days, when speculation was openly rampant, even among Church leaders, but the basic principles and ordinances of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ have endured and the pure doctrine refined.

That's one of the basic missions of the Church, to perfect the Saints. It would be a huge failure if we as a body of believers never progressed at all towards that Biblical unity of faith...

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph. 4:11-13)

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vanhin

[Moksha]

Suggestions? ( and the Lord's people are a peculiar people)

I sense that peculiarity everytime I look in the mirror.

--------------------------

That body of Christ idea the PrisonChaplain has talked about before in regard to those who are disciples of Christ does sound appealing. Sort of a bigger inclusive circle to encompass all our devotion to Jesus, despite our differences.

I believe one of the original messages of the primitive Church was to seek togetherness as a family. Wonder if this could include very peculiar uncles?

[prisonchaplain]

It still is a badge of honor for us to be who we are, and we are separated from the rest of the Christian world in many fundamental ways.

However, it ever was a falsehood for opponents of our Church to claim that we are not "Christians", as in disciples of Christ, or that we worship a different Jesus, not the God of the Bible.

That is what we as a Church are responding to. We're not trying to be more mainstream. We are responding to the criticism that we are not "Christians". We are in very deed Christians!

Ah, but in the effort to become understood there can come a more subtle hunger for acceptance. See how it happened with us:

We are THE full gospel church

We preach the full gospel, while recognizing that others preach a substantial gospel as well

We simply mean that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today--not that other Christians aren't full Christians

Just call us Pentecostal...drop the "full gospel" thing

In fact...we're basically evangelical...it's just we have this little extra thing we do...

I'm not even saying this transition is all bad. But there are parts of us that like the older, let's stand alone for the precious truths that only we have...

[darrel]

Pardon me if I sound too bold in my comments but we as a church recognize truth wherever it is found. All churches have some truth.

The full gospel concept mentioned by PrisonChaplin is true to the extent of their understanding and doctrine. We believe that to be God and Jesus Christ and even the Holy Ghost They have to be Eternal and Unchanging or the same yesterday today and forever. John 17:3 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

The point I would like to make is to truly know God and Jesus Christ requires prophetic revelation which is only given to Gods prophet on the earth. Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveal His secret unto his servent the Prophet.

If our eternal life is on condition of our knowing God and Jesus than we must truly know them and fully understand and keep their commandments

Because God loves all his children he has restored his TRUE GOSPEL to the earth. Matthew 17:11 And jesus answered and said unto them Elias shall truly come and restore all things.

God has revealed his doctrine to ancient prophets from among his dispursed Israel. The Book Of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ and gives us plainly many truths which are not known or not understood in the Bible. We also believe that He has revealed to his modern Prophet the commandments and doctrine which we must follow as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

We members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have no apology for our religion, our teachings, or our claims to be the True Church of our Lord God Jesus Christ on the earth.

This is my testimony that these things are true.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Several strings of late touch on the issue of how the public perceives the LDS faith. Polygamy, Prop. 8, continuing revelation, just how perfect the Prophet is suppose to be, and the recent FAIR conference, which highlighted a rather weak public regard for LDS. My branch of Christianity faced similar negativity in its early years. Many regarded pentcostals as cultish, arrogant (we called ourselves "full gospel"--so others weren't???), crazy (speaking gibberish and rolling in the aisles), and perhaps even demonic. In our case, we succeeded in becoming mainstream evangelical--so much so that most churches sing our songs, lift their hands, and speak freely about "sensing the presence of God." Has this acceptance come at a cost? Perhaps. As evanglicalism has embraced some of the trappings of pentcostal worship, many of our pentecostal churches have lost their distinctive flavor, and become mostly evangelical in practice. Therein lies the danger--the more acceptable you become, the less "special" or "restored" you are.

At this site I see posters who almost seem willing to define LDS teachings in evangelical phrasing. Others want little to do with it, and prefer to herald the Restoration, Eternal Marriage, the possiblity of literally becoming gods, etc. Some believe gaining a measure of acceptance from fellow Christians is highly desirable, while others seem concerned that in so doing, the distinctiveness of the LDS faith will be watered down.

THOUGHTS?

Personally, I extend a measure of acceptance to all other Christians. Good for you!, in starting your journey of understanding the gospel. I don't seek any perceived distinctiveness because it is distinct on it's own, that's just a fact. The only perception I seek from other Christians is that we welcome them to learn more about the LDS faith and to not approach it with preformed ideas before really learning about it.

It's kind of like movie reviews, most of the time I ignore them because its a personal opinion but I have friends who will not go to a movie based on movie reviews. Religion, though, is not that easy, I don't think it can be sorted out by someone else' review. The individual should do the review, pondering and praying, etc. before acceptance or rejection occurs. If 'negative reviews' keep people from investigating the church that they would have otherwise accepted than the blame will be on those making those reviews, not on how we present ourselves.

If one is really living the gospel, nobody is perfect - we try, than that should be distinct enough in this world.

[rameumptom]

I think we need to show both our similarities and our unique qualities. The similarities show that we are believers in Jesus Christ (whether that denotes being Christian or not, is another topic with parameters I won't get into here).

But the unique qualities allow us to give people a reason to consider us over other, somewhat similar, churches.

While evangelism adopted many pentacostal teachings, I doubt Mormonism will have the same problem. While I've seen a few pastors accept and use the Book of Mormon, it just will not be adopted for use by Baptists or Methodists on a large scale. Nor will acceptance of modern prophets and apostles, as that would destroy the concept of "priesthood of believers."

The biggest danger would be for Mormons to give up so much of their beliefs that they become another Christian faith. This is basically the path the Community of Christ has chosen to take. The BoM is now optional. They accept all other baptisms. They have turned Joseph Smith from Prophet of the Restoration to a charismatic leader. That is the direction they've chosen to take, regardless of whether one considers it good or bad. I would venture that within 50 years, there will no longer be discussion of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon in their faith, and perhaps no longer a Doctrine and Covenants as scripture. They will be indistinguishable from many other protestant/evangelical faiths.

The LDS Church will have to tread carefully not to make that same choice, if it wishes to remain a Restoration Church.

[spamlds]

Why is it that people don't "trust" the Mormon Church? I'd have to say it is the constant torrent of anti-Mormonism that spews from the pulpits of sectarian Christendom. Since the beginning of the Restoration, anti-Mormons have lied and distorted our beliefs instead of giving them serious consideration. This continues even today.

A Texas megachurch shows its high school-age youth "The Godmakers" every semester to "inoculate" them from the influence of their Mormon friends. Whenever we hold open houses before temple dedications, there are "concerned Christians" who are passing out anti-Mormon literature to our guests. When the governments of several African nations were considering giving the Church official recognition and allowing our elders into their lands, prominent anti-Mormons flew to those nations and showed anti-Mormon "documentaries" to their parliaments. Just a week ago, apostate Ed Decker was publishing a bunch of anti-Mormon drivel about Romney and an LDS Church plan to overthrow America.

In the years I ran the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I exposed links and cooperation between anti-Mormon Evangelicals and anti-Mormon atheists who swapped notes on how best to attack Mormonism. I found and exposed anti-Mormon gay marriage activists who were in league with anti-Mormon Christians who collaborated against us. Unless you've actually been involved in monitoring this kind of activity, it's hard to believe. But it is very real. There are over 800 parachurches and ministries in the USA who, in most cases, are for-profit businesses that make money selling anti-Mormon books and videos. They refer to themselves as the "counter-cult industry."

For nearly two centuries, anti-Mormons in sectarian churches have had a near monopoly on the minds of their followers. That is why we run ads on television and on the Internet to dispel the false notions that are intentionally promoted by so-called Christians.

Joseph Smith wrote in D&C 123 that the creeds of men are the "mainspring of corruption." False priests and pastors would suddenly find us acceptable if we were to abandon the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith, given at the First Vision. The Lord told him that the creeds were an "abomination," that their "professors are all corrupt," that they have a "form of godliness" but they deny the power thereof.

If we want the world to "trust" us, all we have to do is stop declaring that message. At that point the practitioners of priestcraft would accept us as one of their own. If we want to please men more than God, it's easy to do. If we want to stand up for the truth, there will always be opposition to it.

[Vanhin]

Exactly, spamlds!

It's really not that we are trying to be more mainstream, it's that we have decided not to sit around and let others define or faith any longer.

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

Nor will acceptance of modern prophets and apostles, as that would destroy the concept of "priesthood of believers."

First, I really appreciate this post. Overall you strike an intelligent balance of desiring to connect with others while maintaining your own clear doctrines. On this matter of modern prophets and apostles, what my church has done is to embrace both. We have prophets in our churches. We don't exactly label them as such--we say, "Bro. so&so operates in the gift of prophecy. However, prophecies are given quite regularly. In one sense our missionaries (the full-time clergy) serve that role. They go to foreign lands, or serve on college campuses, or planting new churches. In another sense, our regional and national office serve the apostlic role, providing visionary leadership, cooperative ministry amongst our churches, and mediating difficulties that arise. And, yes, we embrace the priesthood of all believers. Having those who prophecy in all of our churches, and not bestowing titles upon them, actually underlines our core belief that in the last days God's Spirit will be poured out on male and female, slave and free, and that they shall dream dreams and prophesy. (Joel 2:28-29)

The Baptists do not buy into our approach...but worldwide, it's a paradigm that's widely accepted.

[prisonchaplain]

Why is it that people don't "trust" the Mormon Church? I'd have to say it is the constant torrent of anti-Mormonism that spews from the pulpits of sectarian Christendom. Since the beginning of the Restoration, anti-Mormons have lied and distorted our beliefs instead of giving them serious consideration. This continues even today.

I've been in my current church for 8 years. Perhaps I've heard a half-dozen fleeting references to your faith...often something as benign as, "We'd better be telling folks the good news--after all, Mormon young people are out in droves on Saturday mornings." There's no denying that there are specific organizations set up to counter LDS teaching with particular fundementalists or evangelical doctrines...but these are far more noticeable to you than to most Christians. We just don't spend that much time considering other religions...still trying to practice our own well.

Distrust comes largely from lack of exposure. Like I said before, those that have LDS members as neighbors tend to speak glowingly. Then, of course, there are the lingering hot-button issues. Interestingly, it's quite possible that the gay marriage issue will create better understanding--at least amongst evangelicals.

[spamlds]

"Distrust comes largely from lack of exposure."

That's really funny. We have over 50,000 missionaries in the field. We have thousands of members blogging on the Internet. We run commercial spots on TV, radio, and on the web. In fact, one of the chief complaints I've received from anti-Mormons is that they'd be content to leave us alone if we'd just stop proselyting so aggressively.

It's like those critics who attack the Church because it's wealthy. Every time we do something good, like the humanitarian relief to Haiti earlier this year, they attack us. I could only laugh as one group of them bashed us for not being "transparent" in our finances. The other group bashed us for "making a spectacle" out of ourselves and boasting of our good works. Which is it? How do we simultaneously "flaunt" our money while keeping our finances secret?

I have to ask then, which is it? Are Mormons to be criticized for being "overly aggressive" in our proselyting or are we to be faulted for not getting the word out adequately?

I appreciate that you appear to abstain from attacking the Mormon Church in your congregation. You're a rare bird if that's so! The thousands of hostile emails I received from May 2008 to May 2010 when I was operating the S.P.A.M. web site, taught me a lot about anti-Mormon activities, how they're coordinated, the interactions between the parachurches and ministries. It was very enlightening.

[prisonchaplain]

"Distrust comes largely from lack of exposure."

That's really funny. We have over 50,000 missionaries in the field. We have thousands of members blogging on the Internet. We run commercial spots on TV, radio, and on the web. In fact, one of the chief complaints I've received from anti-Mormons is that they'd be content to leave us alone if we'd just stop proselyting so aggressively.

I wasn't blaming your church for this. However, despite the ads and the missionaries, in the last 10 years my main contact with LDS has been from the volunteers that come to the jail. And...that started about four years ago. In those 10 years missionaries came to our house twice (2 different locations). Both times we were nice, but they understood we had a church we were happy with, and apparently saw no need to follow up. If we have LDS friends, neighbors, or colleagues, I'm not aware of it.

In a world of 6 billion, with over 2 billion Christians, 50K missionaries and 13 million members is not huge. And again, maybe my view is skewed. We have seen many more Jehovah's Witnesses, even though their membership is about half yours.

So, I was not meaning to be funny. It's a simple truth that when you have little exposure to a group you are more prone to accept stereotypes, common myths, and way-out-of-date information (polygamy).

I have to ask then, which is it? Are Mormons to be criticized for being "overly aggressive" in our proselyting or are we to be faulted for not getting the word out adequately?

I wasn't criticizing your lack of effort or your over-zealousness. But if I believed what you do, I'd work to get the word out even more aggressively. If you are right, you've got to share, don't you?

I appreciate that you appear to abstain from attacking the Mormon Church in your congregation. You're a rare bird if that's so! The thousands of hostile emails I rec[eived from May 2008 to May 2010 when I was operating the S.P.A.M. web site, taught me a lot about anti-Mormon activities, how they're coordinated, the interactions between the parachurches and ministries. It was very enlightening.

If you engage in LDS apologetics or evangelistic work you are bound to run into anti-LDS efforts. You'll see it everywhere. However, my guess is that if you worked 9-5 in the Seattle area, went to your church activities, and only discussed religion with friends, neighbors and colleagues when it came up naturally, you'd probably see very little organized anti-LDS argumentation.

BTW...I'm not suggesting you pull back or soften your efforts. You must do what you believe God's called you too, regardless of the polls!

[Traveler]

Several strings of late touch on the issue of how the public perceives the LDS faith. Polygamy, Prop. 8, continuing revelation, just how perfect the Prophet is suppose to be, and the recent FAIR conference, which highlighted a rather weak public regard for LDS. My branch of Christianity faced similar negativity in its early years. Many regarded pentcostals as cultish, arrogant (we called ourselves "full gospel"--so others weren't???), crazy (speaking gibberish and rolling in the aisles), and perhaps even demonic. In our case, we succeeded in becoming mainstream evangelical--so much so that most churches sing our songs, lift their hands, and speak freely about "sensing the presence of God." Has this acceptance come at a cost? Perhaps. As evanglicalism has embraced some of the trappings of pentcostal worship, many of our pentecostal churches have lost their distinctive flavor, and become mostly evangelical in practice. Therein lies the danger--the more acceptable you become, the less "special" or "restored" you are.

At this site I see posters who almost seem willing to define LDS teachings in evangelical phrasing. Others want little to do with it, and prefer to herald the Restoration, Eternal Marriage, the possiblity of literally becoming gods, etc. Some believe gaining a measure of acceptance from fellow Christians is highly desirable, while others seem concerned that in so doing, the distinctiveness of the LDS faith will be watered down.

THOUGHTS?

It is my understanding that the covenant peoples of G-d will always be a small minority until the Messiah returns to establish his kingdom. The scriptural term and reference to a “remnant” that is the leaven which causes the whole loaf to rise. The purpose of the “church” is not to win converts to an ideology but to prepare a people to receive the Messiah. There is some indication in scripture that even those that believe in the Messiah and think they are ready and await the Messiah only about half will actually be prepared to receive him (parable of the 10 virgins).

The ancient type and shadow of how G-d prepares a people for the Messiah is the prophet John the Baptist that went before the Messiah to prepare a people for the brief period the Messiah would walk among man. Some of that era wanted to debate and prove the importance of the Jewish heritage. Some looked to their priests and the Levites to “shepherd” them in their traditional religions. Only a few accepted a prophet sent by G-d. The Scribes and Pharisees declared that the teachings of John and Jesus were contrary to the written law and the prophets (scripture). From history we know that John was one of many “preachers” of the time and hardly known by or accepted by the vast majority of those that he taught. But we also know that the followers of John were the vast majority to receive the mortal Jesus.

Therefore the saints of G-d are set out to gather a remnant few, one of a town and two of a city. Many are excited about the growth of the LDS – but it will not last according to my understanding. A time will come when the numbers will significantly reduce. This is according to prophesy but for those that see as the prophets see know that there are many more with us than against us. Thus the goal is not to increase in number but the stand loyal through the great trials prophesied for the last days.

The voice of warning is being sounded and the ensign has been raised to the world from the “tops of the mountains”. The only question is – who will come? And who will have other services and obligations?

The Traveler

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Distrust comes largely from lack of exposure."

I believe this statement has a lot of truth to it. The exposure just has to be the truth. When you begin to have a relationship with someone, you generally have to choose to trust someone. There are so many things you DON'T know about someone, but as you spend time and get acquainted, you become more familiar, right? You begin, in your nature to trust that a person more and more. You trust in a way that you expect them to act or be a certain way. After 40 or 50 years of marriage, the relationship should get tighter and tighter, and therefore one spouse does not need to worry about the other spouse going and stealing or lying or doing whatever type of abominations, because there is an inner-trust built upon through 40 or 50 years of "getting familiar" with each other.

Our relationship with God works the same way. We have a lifetime to get familiar with our Heavenly Father. Christ said no one cometh unto the Father but by me. The way to come unto Christ is through the Holy Spirit, who testifies that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Father is the Father. Therefore we need to be very familiar with the Holy Ghost in our lifetime to get the needed trust or faith to live with our Heavenly Father again. We have really seek with all our hearts to acquire this kind of faith.

Therefore we draw closer to God by our repeated exposure and encounters with the Holy Spirit. Our trust and faith are increased by our communion with the Holy Spirit.

What a blessing as members of the church to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Are we seeking it enough in our lives to enjoy the constant companionship? We can feel witnesses sure, but are we living enough in our lives to feel the direction and support of our Heavenly Father always? At a moment's notice we have the aid and powers brought down from heaven to lift us through the storms and torrents of life. Do we ourselves, live in this manner? What does it mean to believe? Elder McConkie answers this one very plainly if you seek to look up the answer. Jarom 1:4

As relating to the church, the same principles will apply. The only issue, is people have to seek it to know it.

Edited August 12, 2010 by THIRDpersonviewer

[prisonchaplain]

It is my understanding that the covenant peoples of G-d will always be a small minority until the Messiah returns to establish his kingdom.

You are correct! However, whether this small minority are those who choose the right church, or those who faithfully pursue a love relationship with God may be a worthy question. Even amongst LDS, I've heard only 40% are active. In the better evangelical churches half the people tithe. The overall average for Christianity is 20% that do so. How many regularly read scripture, or take time to fast and pray? How many are unashamed about declaring their faith, or taking an unpopular godly stand? If 25% of the 2 billion who claim to be Christian are truly ready that would likely be a tremendous remnant.

[rameumptom]

First, I really appreciate this post. Overall you strike an intelligent balance of desiring to connect with others while maintaining your own clear doctrines. On this matter of modern prophets and apostles, what my church has done is to embrace both. We have prophets in our churches. We don't exactly label them as such--we say, "Bro. so&so operates in the gift of prophecy. However, prophecies are given quite regularly. In one sense our missionaries (the full-time clergy) serve that role. They go to foreign lands, or serve on college campuses, or planting new churches. In another sense, our regional and national office serve the apostlic role, providing visionary leadership, cooperative ministry amongst our churches, and mediating difficulties that arise. And, yes, we embrace the priesthood of all believers. Having those who prophecy in all of our churches, and not bestowing titles upon them, actually underlines our core belief that in the last days God's Spirit will be poured out on male and female, slave and free, and that they shall dream dreams and prophesy. (Joel 2:28-29)

The Baptists do not buy into our approach...but worldwide, it's a paradigm that's widely accepted.

We believe that all mankind may be prophets (with a little 'p'). A key difference between LDS and evangelicals is we also believe in living Prophets and Apostles, in the same vein as Moses and Peter. While we believe there is a power among all believers, we do not denote it as the priesthood, as LDS view priesthood in a very different way. Not too many Christian churches today have stories of John the Baptist, Peter, James, John and other ancient prophets coming to restore priesthood power and authority.