I have an interesting book on history written by the historically-notable oldest, living LDS leader. The book is What of the Mormons? Including a Short History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1947).
Inside the front cover is a two-page, black and white picture of “Historic Temple Square in Salt Lake City” with this verse “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it” (Isaiah 2:2).
Just inside the back cover is a two-page black and white picture of “The Once Barren Valley of the Great Salt Lake” with this verse “The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose” (Isaiah 35:1).
Sixty years, Hinckley wrote, “It [the Church of Latter-day Saints] is an interesting anomaly in Christianity. Its adherents may be classed as modern in the extent and efficiency of their organization. Yet they maintain that there has been an apostasy from the church and principles of the New Testament to which we must return. In this they are fundamentalists” (12).
In light of Hinckley’s words and disregarding today’s baggage of polygamous fundamentalists, how many of you LDS friends would be comfortable in being labeled a Christian fundamentalist? I am curious.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
I’ve heard it said that there is no such thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. This is because in the belief in living oracles and open cannon. The two of those things mean that doctrine may (and does) change. A simple look at the words of Gordon B. Hinckley compared to those of Brigham Young prove this.
Interesting.
I think I would be comfortable being called a “Christian Fundamentalist” in the context Gordon B. Hinkley is using in this post. However, this would create considerable confusion with the FLDS church which has decided to call itself “fundamentalist” based on the now rescinded commandment of polygyny (yes, polygyny, not polygamy).
We are Christian Fundamentalists in that “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth”. Since we believe in this type of organization, we also believe that the positions function in the same manner, specially having prophets who do receive new revelation.
As I said, I would be comfortable being called a Christian Fundamentalist in the context that Gordon B. Hinckley is using. However, I do not think most outside observers, and probably some inside the church, would view “Christian Fundamentalist” in this way. It’s akin to Bill Clinton wanting clarify the definition of “and”. One could ask “fundamental to what?” and we could go round and round just as we probably would on the meaning of several scriptures.