Anti - Anti - Mormon (A Labeling Difficulty)

[JLHPROF]

Have there really been that many?

 

Well, Wikipedia lists 82, including many that are no longer around, and a little research finds many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

 

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is what the term "Mormonism" actually refers to. Christian refers to a follower of Christ. Islam is the religion dealing with Muhammad. What is the definition of "Mormonism"?

 

I think over defining it is actually the error.  If a Christian follows Christ, then all a Mormon needs to be is a follower of the Book of Mormon (and therefore Joseph Smith as its restorer).  Believe in the Book of Mormon, you're a Mormon.  Believe in Christ, you're a Christian. 

[volgadon]

Well, Wikipedia lists 82, including many that are no longer around, and a little research finds many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

 

 

Thanks. I knew that there were a lot, just hadn't realised that there were this many.

[Tacenda]

Well, Wikipedia lists 82, including many that are no longer around, and a little research finds many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

 

 

I think over defining it is actually the error.  If a Christian follows Christ, then all a Mormon needs to be is a follower of the Book of Mormon (and therefore Joseph Smith as its restorer).  Believe in the Book of Mormon, you're a Mormon.  Believe in Christ, you're a Christian. 

So you could be going to one of these churches and not even realize you're a Mormon!

[jwhitlock]

Are you saying that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is the only organization that should be allowed to use the term Mormon when referring to itself?

 

I'm saying that unlike Christianity, which doesn't refer to one particular religious organization, and Islam, which doesn't refer to one particular Muslim group, the term Mormonism seems to be more closely connect specifically to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the same with, for example, Episcopalian where it is generally understood to refer to a dominant organization, rather than Baptist which is a more generic term covering a larger number of groups. In general usage, currently, Mormon or Mormonism seems to be more tightly associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as understood by most people, rather than being an all-encompassing "Baptist" type term.

 

I think that President Hinckley's comments recognized that usage, and wanted to make sure that as such, apostate splinter groups that call themselves Fundamentalist, etc., are not associated with the church and are not (as generally understood) part of what is called Mormonism.

 

The semantics are a bit trickier than they are for more generalized terms such as Christian.

 

Of course, people or groups can call themselves what they want. When such a group says "We are Mormons", we then have the right to say "You aren't part of us" from an organizational standpoint. Saying so simply states that they are not part of us by association; it is NOT a commentary on their beliefs at that point in the discussion.

 

The reason that the accusation that Mormons are not Christians becomes so egregious is that it doesn't simply exclude Mormons from the organizational designation of Orthodox Christianity (which is something we have no problem with; we're not orthodox Christians). Instead, that accusation is mean to distance Mormons from Christ Himself. It makes a judgment about their beliefs, about their faith, and about the power of the saving relationships with Christ in their lives. The implied impact of being accused of not being Christian is different than the implied impact of being accused of not being a Mormon - as I've explained above.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, Wikipedia lists 82, including many that are no longer around, and a little research finds many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

I think over defining it is actually the error. If a Christian follows Christ, then all a Mormon needs to be is a follower of the Book of Mormon (and therefore Joseph Smith as its restorer). Believe in the Book of Mormon, you're a Mormon. Believe in Christ, you're a Christian.

Community of Christ for one does not accept the term "Mormon" for itself.

[jwhitlock]

Well, Wikipedia lists 82, including many that are no longer around, and a little research finds many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

 

 

I think over defining it is actually the error.  If a Christian follows Christ, then all a Mormon needs to be is a follower of the Book of Mormon (and therefore Joseph Smith as its restorer).  Believe in the Book of Mormon, you're a Mormon.  Believe in Christ, you're a Christian. 

 

The problem is the semantics of current or generally accepted usage, as I've posted. In addition, a Mormon is primarily a follower of Christ, not of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith. We are believers in the latter two, but we are followers of Christ.

 

I don't think it's over-defining "Mormonism" to include the specific organization aspect of what "Mormonism" is, just like the term "Episcopalian" infers.  It's difficult to draw a parallel between "Christianity" and "Mormonism" because the former is a very generalized term, while the latter tends to be more specific.

 

That's why we need to agree on what the definition of "Mormonism" really is before we conclude who is and who is not a Mormon. I suspect that agreeing on that definition will be difficult. I agree that we should define it down to its simplest definition, but that simple definition should be complete in its characteristics and not exclude any essential aspect.

 

What are, in reality, those aspects that should be included in "Mormonism"?

[Not A Mormon]

Mistakes, plural.

 

We can start with this.

 

 

 

 

They were all of the same tribe! There were also no rabbis in Jesus' day, and of the sages active, they all had multiuple sages, and it is far from obvious that becoming a sage was the dream of many families. Even when following their teachers, the disciples could follow their own interpretation, as well as innovate.

Sorry i didnt see your reply over the other guys nonsense.

 

The title "Rabbi" was borne by the sages of ancient Israel, who were ordained by the Sanhedrin in accordance with the custom handed down by the elders. A rabbi in the time of Jesus did not refer to any specific office or occupation.

it was a word meaning "great one" or "my master" which was applied to many kinds of people in everyday speech. It was used as a term of respect for a teacher the formal position of rabbi would come later.

The Rabbis would visit local synagogues.

Rabbis invited people to learn to keep the Torah. This was called taking "the yoke of Torah" or "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven".

Rabbi's with s'mikhah would have a new interpretation or yoke. Torah teachers would teach the accepted interpretations or yoke of their community.

The decision to follow a rabbi as a talmid meant total commitment in the first century as it does today.

Since a talmid was totally devoted to becoming like the rabbi he would have spent his entire time listening and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice.

Most students sought out the rabbis they wished to follow.

There were a few really good rabbis who were famous for seeking out their own students. If a student wanted to study with a rabbi he would ask if he might "follow" the rabbi. The rabbi would consider the student to become like him and whether he would make the commitment necessary.

It is likely most students were turned away. Some of course were invited to "follow me". This indicated the rabbi believed the potential talmid had the commitment to become like him.

It would be a huge deal and show great confidence the teacher had in the student.

[jwhitlock]

Sorry i didnt see your reply over the other guys nonsense.

 

 

You aren't, by any possibility, associated with Five Solas and a follower of Pastor Mark at Mars Hill church? If so, that would go quite a long ways in explaining your methodology.

 

In any case, it will be interesting to see how long volgadon is willing to engage with someone who is simply doing copy-and-paste without providing references.

[JLHPROF]

The problem is the semantics of current or generally accepted usage, as I've posted. In addition, a Mormon is primarily a follower of Christ, not of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith. We are believers in the latter two, but we are followers of Christ.

 

I don't think it's over-defining "Mormonism" to include the specific organization aspect of what "Mormonism" is, just like the term "Episcopalian" infers.  It's difficult to draw a parallel between "Christianity" and "Mormonism" because the former is a very generalized term, while the latter tends to be more specific.

 

That's why we need to agree on what the definition of "Mormonism" really is before we conclude who is and who is not a Mormon. I suspect that agreeing on that definition will be difficult. I agree that we should define it down to its simplest definition, but that simple definition should be complete in its characteristics and not exclude any essential aspect.

 

What are, in reality, those aspects that should be included in "Mormonism"?

 

See, and this is where I have disagreement.  I understand that Mormonism USED TO be referring to a specific organization, like Episcopalian.

What I am contending is that 200 years after its founding with near 100 offshoot branches, it no longer refers to the organization but has progressed to a branch of religion, a new world religion (or the restoration of the original if you prefer).

Mormonism is no longer an organization, but is now a religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and on and on.

The Church is no longer the only "Mormon" church, whether other churches like being labled Mormon or the LDS Church accepts them or not is irrelevant.

 

If their tenets have the Book of Mormon as scripture and accept it as having divine origin (Joseph Smith as prophet/restorer) then they are a branch of Mormonism.  SImple as that.  Just as simple as if you accept the Bible as scripture and Jesus Christ as your Saviour you are also a branch of Christianity.  Just as simple as if you accept Mohammed as the prophet and the Koran as divine scripture you are Muslim.

Mormonism is no longer a church, if it even ever was.  It's a religion.

[Not A Mormon]

You aren't, by any possibility, associated with Five Solas and a follower of Pastor Mark at Mars Hill church? If so, that would go quite a long ways in explaining your methodology.

 

In any case, it will be interesting to see how long volgadon is willing to engage with someone who is simply doing copy-and-paste without providing references.

Why are you guys so self righteous?

As a matter of fact I went away added to what I already knew and provided the answer. I typed out every word it took me a long time.

 

so I hope the almighty  volgadon  will take the time to look at it, if its not too inconveniencing for him.

 

You know this is my first contact with Mormons, now I apoligised for my previous statement about Joseph. But you guys have done nothing but attack me since then.

I was accused of not being a Christian, but Ive yet to see any Christian value in any of you so far!

 

Now your accusing me of copy and pasting something that I put some effort putting together on word with out spelling mistakes and my usual bad grammar, because I though maybe I got off on the wrong foot and wanted to get on to a proper discussion.

 

So this is Mormon, to attack and attack. eye for an eye.

 

I dont live like that man

 

To me you just look like a Pharisaical bunch of elitist, without a shred of forgiveness in you. no Christ at all.  ....yuck

 

 

Have fun with yourselves, you win I quit

 

We expect Christian behavior on this board.  If you continue, you must be civil and courteous in your disagreement.

[volgadon]

Mike, is this you? http://followtherabbi.com/guide/detail/rabbi-and-talmidim

[Thinking]

I'm saying that unlike Christianity, which doesn't refer to one particular religious organization, and Islam, which doesn't refer to one particular Muslim group, the term Mormonism seems to be more closely connect specifically to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the same with, for example, Episcopalian where it is generally understood to refer to a dominant organization, rather than Baptist which is a more generic term covering a larger number of groups. In general usage, currently, Mormon or Mormonism seems to be more tightly associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as understood by most people, rather than being an all-encompassing "Baptist" type term.

 

I think that President Hinckley's comments recognized that usage, and wanted to make sure that as such, apostate splinter groups that call themselves Fundamentalist, etc., are not associated with the church and are not (as generally understood) part of what is called Mormonism.

 

The semantics are a bit trickier than they are for more generalized terms such as Christian.

 

Of course, people or groups can call themselves what they want. When such a group says "We are Mormons", we then have the right to say "You aren't part of us" from an organizational standpoint. Saying so simply states that they are not part of us by association; it is NOT a commentary on their beliefs at that point in the discussion.

 

The reason that the accusation that Mormons are not Christians becomes so egregious is that it doesn't simply exclude Mormons from the organizational designation of Orthodox Christianity (which is something we have no problem with; we're not orthodox Christians). Instead, that accusation is mean to distance Mormons from Christ Himself. It makes a judgment about their beliefs, about their faith, and about the power of the saving relationships with Christ in their lives. The implied impact of being accused of not being Christian is different than the implied impact of being accused of not being a Mormon - as I've explained above.

Isn't it interesting that in its Style Guide the Church discourages the use of the term Mormon when referring to the Church.

"Don't call us Mormons, but don't call anybody else Mormons either."

[JLHPROF]

Why are you guys so self righteous?

As a matter of fact I went away added to what I already knew and provided the answer. I typed out every word it took me a long time.

 

so I hope the almighty  volgadon  will take the time to look at it, if its not too inconveniencing for him.

 

You know this is my first contact with Mormons, now I apoligised for my previous statement about Joseph. But you guys have done nothing but attack me since then.

I was accused of not being a Christian, but Ive yet to see any Christian value in any of you so far!

 

Now your accusing me of copy and pasting something that I put some effort putting together on word with out spelling mistakes and my usual bad grammar, because I though maybe I got off on the wrong foot and wanted to get on to a proper discussion.

 

So this is Mormon, to attack and attack. eye for an eye.

 

I dont live like that man

 

To me you just look like a Pharisaical bunch of elitist, without a shred of forgiveness in you. no Christ at all.  ....yuck

 

 

Have fun with yourselves, you win I quit

 

This board can be very Christian, but it is a discussion board.  People here have very little patience for unsubstantiated opinions put over as fact.  They have very little interest in emotional debate (although it seems to happen), but a good spirited discussion is always welcome.

And they are not here to defend Mormonism, just to discuss it.  Mostly because we have all seen every attack on the Mormon religion a million times.  There is nothing new under the sun that can be said against it and we get tired of repeating ourselves.

If you pull out the scriptures and have something interesting to discuss you will be welcomed with open arms most of the time.

 

There is no interest in driving out people, but as with any discussion forum there are certain rules to play by...and then the people here are mostly friendly.

[jwhitlock]

See, and this is where I have disagreement.  I understand that Mormonism USED TO be referring to a specific organization, like Episcopalian.

What I am contending is that 200 years after its founding with near 100 offshoot branches, it no longer refers to the organization but has progressed to a branch of religion, a new world religion (or the restoration of the original if you prefer).

Mormonism is no longer an organization, but is now a religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and on and on.

The Church is no longer the only "Mormon" church, whether other churches like being labled Mormon or the LDS Church accepts them or not is irrelevant.

 

If their tenets have the Book of Mormon as scripture and accept it as having divine origin (Joseph Smith as prophet/restorer) then they are a branch of Mormonism.  SImple as that.  Just as simple as if you accept the Bible as scripture and Jesus Christ as your Saviour you are also a branch of Christianity.  Just as simple as if you accept Mohammed as the prophet and the Koran as divine scripture you are Muslim.

Mormonism is no longer a church, if it even ever was.  It's a religion.

 

The problem with classifying Mormonism as a religion is that it pushes away the primacy of Jesus Christ as the foundation. All of the religions that you mention have very separate foundations as to who (or in some cases, what) they follow.

 

Since Mormonism's foundation is Christ, it is most properly classified under the religion of Christianity - not as a separate religion that doesn't fall under the umbrella of Christianity.

 

As such, Mormonism classifies as a sub-category under Christianity, the same as Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Amish, and so forth. The disagreement is really about how closely the semantic term of "Mormonism" is still aligned to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Consider the term Episcopalian. It is differentiated from the  Church of England because of the latter's allegiance to the King of England. Episcopalian as a designation is directly related to the American church, and though there are offshoots, the generic use of Episcopalian is generally understood to refer to that specific organization - though others also like to claim it.

 

On the other hand, the term Baptist is generally understood to include a wide variety of Baptist-designated organizations that have no relationship to each other. The difference between Episcopalian and Baptist, however, is that there is no defined original Baptist organization that can be generally identified as uniquely Baptist.

 

The same applies to other designations. Can we identify an existing church organization that would have primacy in using the term? If so, the term will tend to be generally associated with that particular church organization, and not with the offshoot organizations that are no longer part of that primary church organization.

 

Such appears to be the case with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's the church Joseph Smith restored. The Community of Christ has been steadily distancing itself from its claimed roots, and all other churches that believe or preach in some way about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith are considered apostate or other offshoot groups no longer connected to the Mormon church or Mormonism, as its generally identified.

 

Perhaps the best example would be to compare Mormonism with Catholicism when looking at semantics. Catholicism is the Roman church headquartered in the Vatican. The Eastern Orthodox or Greek church is not generally understood to be Catholic in the same sense, though it and the Roman church divided from each other hundreds of years ago. When people speak of Catholicism, it's understood to be in reference to the Catholic church and not an umbrella (the catholic "universal" designation heard in protestant churches is another matter totally).

 

As such, it would appear that "Mormonism" is still very closely associated primarily with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not yet (if it will ever be) a more generic designation or umbrella term.

[jwhitlock]

Why are you guys so self righteous?

As a matter of fact I went away added to what I already knew and provided the answer. I typed out every word it took me a long time.

 

so I hope the almighty  volgadon  will take the time to look at it, if its not too inconveniencing for him.

 

You know this is my first contact with Mormons, now I apoligised for my previous statement about Joseph. But you guys have done nothing but attack me since then.

I was accused of not being a Christian, but Ive yet to see any Christian value in any of you so far!

 

Now your accusing me of copy and pasting something that I put some effort putting together on word with out spelling mistakes and my usual bad grammar, because I though maybe I got off on the wrong foot and wanted to get on to a proper discussion.

 

So this is Mormon, to attack and attack. eye for an eye.

 

I dont live like that man

 

To me you just look like a Pharisaical bunch of elitist, without a shred of forgiveness in you. no Christ at all.  ....yuck

 

 

Have fun with yourselves, you win I quit

 

How fun, a drive by troll who makes the first attack and then self-righteously (and rather arrogantly) demeans people who take exception with him.

 

I will, though, point out that you are obviously lying about this being your first contact with Mormons. Your first post in this thread exhibited far too much anti-Mormon drivel to make this claim believable.

 

So thanks for playing. And it really was poor form on your part to take a cheap shot at volgadon ("almighty" indeed) in the way you did. But flaming Mormons is so much "Christian" fun, isn't it.

[jwhitlock]

Isn't it interesting that in its Style Guide the Church discourages the use of the term Mormon when referring to the Church.

"Don't call us Mormons, but don't call anybody else Mormons either."

 

Yet we have to deal with what people outside of the church perceive us as, and President Hinckley's comment in defining Mormonism for those people was spot on.

[jwhitlock]

Mike, is this you? http://followtherabbi.com/guide/detail/rabbi-and-talmidim

 

Vogadon, you are amazing. How on earth did you figure out the actual site he was using to copy and paste his "responses"?

 

He was lying again when he said: "Now your accusing me of copy and pasting something that I put some effort putting together on word with out spelling mistakes and my usual bad grammar, because I though maybe I got off on the wrong foot and wanted to get on to a proper discussion."

 

Have you had to deal with him before?

[bluebell]

Hi my name is Mike, nice to meet you all.

 

The Jews would follow a Rabbi and say somthing along the lines of "I am of Rabbi Paul" or "I am of Rabbi Steve" and they woud literally stick by that Rabbi's side and learn from him his form of Judaism rituals and philosophy. Usually a Rabbi would pick a boy from his same tribe, and it was the boys hope as well as his familys that if he studied hard enough he would be picked.

 

In the same way Jesus the Son of God the Father was also considered a Rabbi and said to his disciples follow me, a bunch of fishermen and a tax collector all the dregs of society. these men become of Rabbi Christ "Christians" as later titled by the Romans

 

By contrast the Mormons do not follow the teaching of Christ nor do they accept his blood atonement poured out in grace. Instead they follow a man Joseph Smith and porfess to follow Christ, but not without the teachings of Joseph. So in essence they do not follow Christ but only profess it with their mouths. They are followers of Rabbi Joseph after the days of Christ and after the work of Gods holy Word was complete. Making Rabbi Joseph who works outside of scripture a false Rabbi. (for lack of a better description sorry)

 

So in everyway a Christian is anti Mormon whether they like the title or not, because of the Mormon doctrine, we can not stand shoulder to shoulder as brothers. nor even say we are brothers. Those who follow Christ are sons and daughters of God. Those who do not are not, so we are not related.

 

This is a sad truth. sorry if I have missed the point completely to this thread.

 

You could not be more misinformed Mike.

 

We do very much worship Jesus Christ as our Savior, and rely wholly upon His merits and His Atonement to be saved.  One of my favorite scriptures in the Book of Mormon says-

 

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."

 

We do not worship Joseph Smith.  We do not follow Him in place of Jesus Christ.  

 

We study the Bible (we use the KJV) and in fact study it solely two of every four years of Sunday School in church.  Our high school kids and college kids take independent classes which also focus completely on the bible two out of four years of study for high school and college.

 

If you feel like you must judge us, at least do so with an accurate understanding of what we actually believe.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

The problem with classifying Mormonism as a religion is that it pushes away the primacy of Jesus Christ as the foundation. All of the religions that you mention have very separate foundations as to who (or in some cases, what) they follow.

 

Since Mormonism's foundation is Christ, it is most properly classified under the religion of Christianity - not as a separate religion that doesn't fall under the umbrella of Christianity.

 

As such, Mormonism classifies as a sub-category under Christianity, the same as Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Amish, and so forth. The disagreement is really about how closely the semantic term of "Mormonism" is still aligned to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

I'm going to do something bad here and contradict myself a bit.  I have argued that Mormonism should include all sects and groups that accept the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as its founder.  I'm not going to back down from that belief.

 

But, as a tangent related to this:

In light of your concern I have to address the issue of the Christian religion superceding Mormonism and pulling Mormonism in under its umbrella.

I personally consider Mormonism to be the eternal gospel, dating back to Adam in the Garden and before.  I believe that what are known as Judaism and Christianity are actually offshoots of the one true religion (which we have named Mormonism today, but existed before the Book of Mormon), not the other way around.  Mormonism doesn't really come under Christianity.  Each dispensation has named the gospel with a different religious name, but its all one gospel - in Moses' day it was Judaism, in Christ's day it was Christianity, in this last dispensation we call it Mormonism, but this religion is eternal and ALL branches of truth come from it.

 

So, yes, I don't like limiting Mormonism to today's LDS church any more than I like limiting the eternal gospel to what was restored in the days of Christ's apostles.

[jwhitlock]

I'm going to do something bad here and contradict myself a bit.  I have argued that Mormonism should include all sects and groups that accept the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as its founder.  I'm not going to back down from that belief.

 

But, as a tangent related to this:

In light of your concern I have to address the issue of the Christian religion superceding Mormonism and pulling Mormonism in under its umbrella.

I personally consider Mormonism to be the eternal gospel, dating back to Adam in the Garden and before.  I believe that what are known as Judaism and Christianity are actually offshoots of the one true religion (which we have named Mormonism today, but existed before the Book of Mormon), not the other way around.  Mormonism doesn't really come under Christianity.  Each dispensation has named the gospel with a different religious name, but its all one gospel - in Moses' day it was Judaism, in Christ's day it was Christianity, in this last dispensation we call it Mormonism, but this religion is eternal and ALL branches of truth come from it.

 

So, yes, I don't like limiting Mormonism to today's LDS church any more than I like limiting the eternal gospel to what was restored in the days of Christ's apostles.

 

So is it fair to say that you, from a total historical standpoint, equate Mormonism with the Fullness of the Gospel when/wherever it's been taught?

[Calm]

Instead they follow a man Joseph Smith and porfess to follow Christ, but not without the teachings of Joseph. 

If Joseph learnt at the feet of Christ and his messengers as he claims, it is the teachings of Christ, not Joseph.  Just as the Rabbis passed on the teachings through generations.

 

But to know this one must get to know Christ to confirm or deny it.

 

I am a Christian and a Mormon so I suspect that one can figure out the answer I received.

[mfbukowski]

If you think you are the true church why do you can whether others think you are Christian?

I don't.

 

The problem is more that they have co-opted the word.

 

It's like re-naming "black" "white".

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't it interesting that in its Style Guide the Church discourages the use of the term Mormon when referring to the Church.

"Don't call us Mormons, but don't call anybody else Mormons either."

This is a rather frequently expressed but quite erroneous assumption. The Church does <not> in fact discourage people from referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons. Nor does it object to the use of Mormon as a descriptor as in Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Pioneers or Mormon Trail. What the Church does object to is calling it the "Mormon Church." This is because of the specific commandment of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon to His followers that they call His Church after His name.

From this it should be clear there is nothing at all inconsistent with the position of the Church on this matter, your mischaracterization of that position notwithstanding.

You claim to be basing your remark on the Church's own style guide. If it's true you have seen the style guide, I submit that you have rather badly misread it or are misremembering it.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

This is a rather frequently expressed but quite erroneous assumption. The Church does <not> in fact discourage people from referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons. Nor does it object to the use of Mormon as a descriptor as in Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Pioneers or Mormon Trail. What the Church does object to is calling it the "Mormon Church." This is because of the specific commandment of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon to His followers that they call His Church after His name.

From this it should be clear there is nothing at all inconsistent with the position of the Church on this matter, your mischaracterization of that position notwithstanding.

You claim to be basing your remark on the Church's own style guide. If it's true you have seen the style guide, I submit that you have rather badly misread it or are misremembering it.

Confucious say, "Those too eager to find fault often end up with egg on face and foot in mouth."

[ERayR]

Why are you guys so self righteous?

As a matter of fact I went away added to what I already knew and provided the answer. I typed out every word it took me a long time.

 

so I hope the almighty  volgadon  will take the time to look at it, if its not too inconveniencing for him.

 

You know this is my first contact with Mormons, now I apoligised for my previous statement about Joseph. But you guys have done nothing but attack me since then.

I was accused of not being a Christian, but Ive yet to see any Christian value in any of you so far!

 

Now your accusing me of copy and pasting something that I put some effort putting together on word with out spelling mistakes and my usual bad grammar, because I though maybe I got off on the wrong foot and wanted to get on to a proper discussion.

 

So this is Mormon, to attack and attack. eye for an eye.

 

I dont live like that man

 

To me you just look like a Pharisaical bunch of elitist, without a shred of forgiveness in you. no Christ at all.  ....yuck

 

 

Have fun with yourselves, you win I quit

 

We expect Christian behavior on this board.  If you continue, you must be civil and courteous in your disagreement.

 

Irony