Lds Undermining Calls To Acceptance As Christian

[Russell C McGregor]

[i saw the lower case LDS too late, and couldn't find a way to edit it.  I apologize for the error. Please let me know if there is a way to edit topic titles.  Thanks!]

 

This topic is not about whether or not Mormons are Christians.  It is not about whether Mormonism is a Christian religion.

 

It is about whether and how the LDS leadership undermines its own position, and that of the membership - that other Christian groups should recognize it, them, as Christians - when it refuses to recognize other Mormon groups as Mormons.

 

Following are statements made by the LDS Church:

 

1) A recent news story referred to fugitive Warren Jeffs as a “fundamentalist Mormon” and “leader of a polygamist breakaway Mormon sect.”

 

Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To refer to them as “Mormon” is inaccurate.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamentalist-mormons

 

2) Fact:

    There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/fundamentalist-mormons

 

3) Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy, especially focusing on groups in Southern Utah, Arizona and Texas, have used terms such as "fundamentalist Mormons," "Mormon sect" and "polygamous Mormons" to refer to those who practice polygamy.

    There is no such thing as a "polygamous" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamous-mormons

 

4) "...it is estimated that approximately 30,000 Mormons live in polygamous households in Utah."

Fact:

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Groups that practice polygamy have nothing to do whatsoever with the Church and should not be referred to as Mormons.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/30-000-mormon-polygamists

 

5) There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

-President Gordon B. Hinckley

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng

 

All of these official statements made by the LDS Church deny the use of “Mormon” when referring to polygamous or fundamentalist groups.  How is this to be justified when the LDS Church and its members decry Christian groups that refuse to refer to LDS as Christians or the LDS Church as a Christian church?

 

In all of these quotes the term “Mormon” is being defined as a member of the LDS Church.  But that is at least an outdated definition - denying the reality of the existence and legitimacy of other groups that embrace Joseph Smith’s restoration and scriptures.  It is certainly self-serving, especially if used to differentiate between the “Mormon” issue and the “Christian” issue.

 

Why do Christians deny that Mormons are Christians?  Why does the LDS Church deny that off-shoot Mormons are Mormons?

 

See the following (especially in bold):

 

6) The Associated Press style guide tells its reporters that the term Mormon “is not properly applied” to the other churches that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith's death. It should be obvious why the AP has adopted that policy. It is widely understood that the word “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sends out “Mormon missionaries,” sponsors the “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and builds “Mormon temples.” Associating the term ‘Mormon’ with polygamists blurs what should be a crystal-clear line of distinction between organizations that are entirely separate.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/-mormons-and-polygamy

 

While the terms LDS and Mormon are not brands in the commercial sense, these terms reflect the identity, reputation and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS Church has the right and expectation that the use of these terms will convey certain impressions to those who become aware of them. This is known in the business world as brand equity and in the words of NetMBA.com it "is an intangible asset that depends on associations made by the consumer."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700224488/Adoption-of-FLDS-name-is-akin-to-identity-theft.html?pg=all

 

Christians don’t want the public (consumers) to confuse Mormonism for Christianity.  LDS leadership doesn’t want the public to confuse Mormon off-shoots for Mormonism or the LDS Church.

 

Insofar as the LDS Church denies off-shoot groups the name “Mormon”, the LDS Church undermines its call for non-LDS Christians to accept it as Christian.  In nearly every way that the LDS Church justifies denying “Mormon” to off-shoots, it justifies Christians denying “Christian” to Mormonism.

 

 

That's a clever argument, but ultimately a specious one.

 

You are making an apples-and-oranges comparison.  The two situations are not parallel.

 

A Christian is a follower of Christ.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and probably dishonest, to claim it as the exclusive property of any group, or of any one interpretation of Christ's message.

 

A Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a single organic institution.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and possibly dishonest, to claim that it denotes participation in some big, vague, amorphous "movement."

 

ETA: Besides all that, there's something else you are missing.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ isn't asking other Christians to accept us into their "club."  For them to admit that we are a Christian Church is to acknowledge a rather simple, easily demonstrable and not logically disputable fact.  That's all.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[volgadon]

And to be self-sufficient I suppose we should bring our own beef and charcoal and mushrooms to grill and smoke on our own fire. Oh and our own salt too, I suppose.

It is from the Tom Lehrer classic posted earlier.

Oh we will all fry together when we fry

We'll be French fried potatoes by and by

There will be no more misery

When the world is our rotisserie

Yes, we all will fry together when we fry

[JLHPROF]

Insofar as the LDS Church denies off-shoot groups the name “Mormon”, the LDS Church undermines its call for non-LDS Christians to accept it as Christian.  In nearly every way that the LDS Church justifies denying “Mormon” to off-shoots, it justifies Christians denying “Christian” to Mormonism.

 

I'm in the minority afraid.

I don't believe the LDS Church gets to have a unique claim on the term Mormon anymore.  They did in the beginning, but it is just no longer accurate.

Some have suggested using the term "restoration movement" to describe other Mormon religions not affiliated with the Church.  I think that is just semantic nonsense.

 

Christianity is a subset of "Judeo-Christian" roots.  Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.  The LDS Church is a subset of Mormonism as are many other religious groups.

 

The Church can continue to attempt to copyright the term Mormon all they want but I for one don't accept that choice.  There have been hundreds of Mormon sects.

[Joshua Valentine]

Christian has a very broad definition. A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. That's fairly vague.

Mormon has a very specific definition. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter days. Entry into the Church has always been clearly defined with baptism and exit clearly defined with excommunication or resigning membership.

I fail to see how using the English language accurately hurts our arguments.

 

As I said in the OP, to define "Mormon" as only a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is self-serving or reality-denying.  See more below

 

While technically correct I disagree we are doing anything wrong. I work in communications and sometimes being technically correct is misleading, deceptive, or even downright lying. This is one of those cases. Christian does not in the popular mind connect to a particular branch of Christianity. If I say I am Christian people do not assume I belong to a specific faith. The general usage is one who follows Jesus Christ and holds him as a key of their religious faith. LDS qualify. To claim we are not Christian is misleading.

 

The meaning of Mormon is less clear. In the popular mind a Mormon refers to what they know as the LDS faith complete with missionary name tags, temples, Word of Wisdom, and all the rest. To call another restorationist group Mormon is confusing and misleads even if it is correct.

...

 

If our offshoots want an all-embracing name for themselves including us it is up to them to create it. Right now using the word Mormon just serves to confuse listeners.

 

As for the emboldened part of your comment: In the popular mind a Mormon does refer to what they know as the LDS faith complete with missionary name rages, temples, (something about the) Word of Wisdom, and all the rest, which also, plainly, includes polygamy, and small groups (somehow different than the big group).  This is the very reason that the LDS leadership and membership are trying to clarify what a Mormon is, because in the minds of the public it includes multiple groups (even if they aren't clear on who is who) and, thus, the LDS leadership is trying to deny "Mormon" to a group that is already in the mind of the public as "Mormon".

 

For the (just) underlined part: Given the above, "Mormon" does not immediately connect to a specific part of Mormonism.  Just because Christianity and its denominations have been a part of American society for much longer and thus people are clearer about different groups does not mean that Mormon is somehow just for the LDS Church.  Obviously, since it includes polygamy in the public mind, they are confused, but they are still seeing "Mormon" as something that involves multiple groups.  Clarity of differentiation, or lack thereof, does not preclude that indeed "Mormon" already has a larger definition in the public mind than simply a member of one particular LDS church.

 

As for the underlined and italicized portion see below

 

I don't think that the LDS church is undermining its position vis-a-vis an insistence of being classified as Christian when denying non-LDS the use of "Mormon".  

 

By the way, I believe that the grouping word for all offshoots of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "Restorationist" .[my note #1]  The original LDS Church is the one which was called Mormon, and the current LDS Church maintains continuity with the original LDS church. [my note #2]

 

The most major Restorationist offshoot, the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized LDS), did not use the sobriquet "Mormon" and did not identify itself as such.  I have been acquainted with some members of that church, and none of them identified as Mormon.  So far as I know, none of the Restorationist offshoots used "Mormon" as a designation, even as a generic designation.  Several years ago, when the FLDS Church sent out a rather large package of material including so-called "revelations" from their fearless leader to many LDS local leaders, I had the chance of reviewing the material.  Nowhere did they use the term "Mormon" to describe their organization.

 

So far as I can tell, all of the non-LDS Restorationist organizations prefer to NOT be identified as "Mormon".  Because among them, WE are the Mormons, and they aren't.[my note #3]

 

The Church distinguishes itself from these other organizations in its advice to journalists primarily to keep the journalists straight, not to DENY the designation to others out of some selfishness.[my note #4] 

 

Were you aware that the Church of England is an offshoot from Roman Catholicism?  Would the Pope be OK with the Archbishop of Canterbury claiming to be a Catholic?  Or would both the Pope and the Archbishop prefer to say that he is a Anglican?  More to the point, wouldn't the Vatican advise journalists to refer to the RCC as such, and the CofE as something else? [my note #5]

 

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Mormons.  Members of the FLDS Church are not.  I am pretty sure that they are content with this -- can you demonstrate otherwise?  But all of them, LDS, FLDS, CoC, Strangites, Temple Lot, and so on, are all Restorationists, and are Christians. [my note #6]

 

Let's all call things what they are.[my note #7]

 

1 - "Mormon" is a much better name than "Restorationist". Just as Christian easily leads to the question "which denomination of Christianity?" "Mormon easily leads to "which denomination/church of Mormonism".  Restorationist, however, doesn't even tell you what religious super-group you are talking about.  It doesn't just refer to off-shoots of the original Joseph Smith church, but would not differentiate from other restorationist groups before, during, and after(?) the start of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

2 - A lack of perspective is one of the main points I will make below.  But for now, these other Mormon groups also claim continuity with the church Joseph Smith started.  Would the first church in Roman lands to have members called "Christians" be right to claim other groups in other lands were not "Christians"?  I know it sounds silly, but it is relevant.

 

3 & 6 - Just for overall review, I refer back to saemo (which you conceded the point to):

 

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_9828897...SL Trib, "We're Mormons Too"

http://www.imormonff.com/beliefs.html...Mormons

http://reform-mormon.blogspot.com... This one has a blog entry on why the LDS Church is not Mormon

 

 4 - Are you saying that the LDS leadership is just concerned with quality of journalism?  Really? [They have motives - boundary maintenance, brand integrity - and they are (in no immoral way) selfish or self-centered, or self-concerned.  One of the main points is that these are the same motives of many non-LDS Christians, too.

 

5 - Your CofE and Catholicism example seems a better example, as I think the history of Christianity is, that "Mormon" ought (just as "Christian" was and is) to be used to group all of these parties while allowing their specifics to differentiate them.  Catholics and CoE's would not blur lines by using "Catholic" for both, they do at least recognize the larger Christian movement and the participation of each other in it.  I advocate that the LDS Church do the same with Mormonism and the larger Mormon movement.  What if the Pope decreed that only members of the Catholic Church were "Christians"?  How is that any different than the LDS Church trying to define "Mormons" as only members of its organization? 

 

7 - You should see mfbukowski and the deflationary theory of truth about that.

 

 

Oh, all right.  Some of them want to claim it.  Many others do not.

 

I appreciate your concession to saemo's evidence (thank you saemo), but that does diffuse at least that point of yours.  See below about how it wouldn't matter if none of them did claim "Mormon". 

 

You got a stronger stomach than I do.

 

Yes, they can call themselves anything they want.  Doesn't mean that's what they are.  It's like calling a Megalodon a "shark".  There's a resemblance, perhaps, but that isn't what it is.

 

By the way, you're up late!  Can't sleep?

 

Again - mfbukowski (or at least his Google search on "deflationary theory of truth" [i'm sure mfbukowski has other things to do]).  As for megalodon and resemblances.  Many Mormon groups, especially fundamentalist/polygamous, resemble the LDS Church in doctrine very much, and much more than the LDS Church resembles non-LDS Christian groups.  So I am unsure of your point.

 

Please see SeekingUnderstanding's comment below. 

 

[Joshua Valentine]

Continued from above 
 

I think you should go one step further with this;
 
What makes a Methodist a Methodist?
 
Their unique view on Christianity.
 
What makes a Pentecostal a Pentecostal?
 
Their unique view on Christianity.
 
What makes a Mormon a Mormon?
 
Their unique view on Christianity.
 
As much as Methodists may say that other churches are Christian, they would not say they are Methodists. The same goes with Pentecostals, and of course, the same goes for Mormons.
 
My friend is a Methodist, but he would not want to be a fundamental Methodist or another kind.

 
 Not quite sure what your point is here.  I read this as "Methodists consider other groups Christian but not Methodist".  My argument is that the LDS Church should recognize other groups as Mormon but not members.
 
Seems simple enough.
 

I think it would be more accurate to compare Protestants and Catholic to Mormons and their offshoots.
Would the Catholic church be wrong to not include any or all Protestants as Catholic?
Can a Protestand faith rightly be called Catholic since that is their root?

"Fundamentalist" mormons have departed from the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and do not share leadership. Oh they may argue that they are the ones that maintained the true doctrines, but the fact of the matter is, they split with the church. The CoJCoLDS originally had the nickname "mormon", and they left.

LDS claim that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, so the term "Christian" still applies to us.
"Christian" is a very broad category while "Mormon" is very specific.

 
The LDS Church is trying to use a specific/narrow definition.  But when Christians try to use a narrower definition than simply "follower of Jesus", LDS cry fowl. Mormons of all types claim the Book of Mormon is true, so the term "Mormon" still applies.
 
Splitting from a church does not split one off from a religious group or movement.  Mormonism is not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Mormons are not just members of it, either. 
 
As to Protestants and Catholics: again, Protestants and Catholics recognize each other as Christians at least at the level as co-members of the Christian movement.  They may not agree about who is more legitimately Christian, but they recognize other groups as part of the movement beginning with Jesus Christ.  See, Protestants and Catholics don't have to worry about claiming one of those two names for both, they have "Christian".  So, too, LDS Church members and non-LDS Church members don't have to fight over the name "Mormon", simply recognize each other as Mormons (more or less legitimate, faithfully, true, etc.) but still part of Mormonism and its accompanying movement.  Also, heretics may be a better term for some of these groups, and heretics are still Christian heretics or Mormon heretics.

Please see SeekingUnderstanding's comment below. 
 
 

This is a really poor argument. The LDS church doesn't want people mistaking the offshoots for members of the LDS church. Unless there is some official Christian church I am unaware of, your analogy falls apart on the face of it.

 
I appreciate what you are saying.  However, I think you may be misunderstanding me.  It is not an analogy.  In fact, the root of my argument does not require any other group to desire to be called Mormons, nor does it require an official group, it is all about the motivations involved: those the LDS leadership and membership have and those they denounce in Christians (who have the same motivations).
 
Christians, for example, do not want people mistaking (what they view as) illegitimate replacement groups for legitimate Christianity.  Perhaps these are different levels (religion or religious movement vs. church), but the motivations are the same.
 

There actually is an official Christian church. The Church bbqing of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints.

Unfortunately we.haven't fully persuaded everyone to recognize that

 
Exactly.
 
 

I think this is backwards. Fundamentalist Mormons live based on doctrines that were taught and believed through President John Taylor. It is the mainline church that changed, not them.

 
Correct, despite megalodons and members and non-members, the fact is that other Mormon groups have much more in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has with other Christian groups.  Any attempt to be recognized as part of the Christian super-group only reinforces the grouping of the LDS Church and other Mormon groups together in their own subset - Mormonism and Mormons.

 

There is also no official "mormon" church - at least in the US. About 10 years ago the LDS church tried to trademark the term "mormon" for religious services. We were rejected by the trademark office because we frankly don't have enough control over the term. I'll grant that more people associate "mormon" with the LDS church than associate "christian" with any particular denomination, but the connection is still not strong enough for the LDS church to claim sole ownership over "mormon."
 
Personally, I'm sympathetic to the LDS church's concerns that we get confused with fundamentalists. It's not uncommon for me to have to explain to by neighbors that my faith is not that of Warren Jeffs. But it's also not uncommon for me to have to explain to my neighbors that my faith doesn't eschew modern technology (they sometimes confuse me with the amish). That's just normal human ignorance. And it's just as prevelant in LDS circles. Try asking your local ward members the difference between Lutherans, baptists, anabaptists, methodists, and greek orthodox. You'll quickly see how ignorant we are as well.
 
That's why, when it comes to professions of faith, I follow the principle of allowing each person the right to describe themself. If someone says they're a christian, I accept that. If someone says they're a mormon, I accept that.

 
I am also sympathetic to the LDS Church's concerns that it gets confused with "fundamentalists".  But trying to hold onto the very general term "Mormon" when there are obviously other groups that share so much in common with the LDS Church and its history, the history and/or doctrines of Mormonism and the heritage of all Mormons, is not the answer. 
 

[Joshua Valentine]

Continued from above
 

Precisely. It's annoying when people presume to define who is and who isn't a Christian. Back in the day, when people would say "You worship a different Jesus," I would say, "Well, I don't know which Jesus you worship, but I worship the one who was born in Bethlehem as the Son of God and who suffered and died for our sins. Which one do you worship?"

 
I'm sure that there are non-LDS Church Mormons who find it annoying that LDS Church and its members presume to define who is and isn't a Mormon.  Without going into the different Jesus issue (President Hinckley's admission and GrapeNuts analogy), is it really much better to simply reply "we have the true prophet!"?
 

Anyway, it would seem to me at least that the word "Mormon" should apply to anyone who includes the Book of Mormon in their canon, and "Latter-day Saint" should be used to more specifically refer to members of the mainstream LDS Church.

 
I agree Gray.  At the very least, Mormon should be common to all within Mormonism.  I tend to even claim that "Latter-day Saint" should be available to all as well.  But I'm willing to compromise.  There's no need to take all the words. *cough* LDS Church *cough*
 

I don't care who calls themselves mormon.  As long as they aren't doing it trying to pretend they are a member of the LDS church when they aren't, they can use the label all they want.

 
I agree.  I simply want to point out that the position you have, the meaning you value, behind this statement about "as long as they aren't trying to pretend they are a member" is the same kind of position and value of meaning that non-LDS Christians are coming from (more or less legitimately) when they resist allowing the LDS Church to be considered Christian.
 

All cats and dogs are mammals. But not all mammals are cats or dogs.

 
Yes...
 
Shouldn't that be "all cats and dogs are mammals but not all cats are dogs"?  This would still be assuming that defining Mormon as a member of the LDS Church is legitimate - a position I challenged in the OP, and continue to throughout this response.
 
The best I can do with what you said here is "All LDS Mormons and non-LDS Mormons are Christian.  But not all Christians are LDS Mormons or non-LDS Mormons".  But that's obvious.  Or "All LDS and non-LDS are Mormons.  But not all Mormons are LDS or non-LDS." But that doesn't work. So...
 

Not when you understand how the words are being used.

 
LDS complain about how Christians use/define the word "Christian" to overspecify and "stack the deck" in the argument.  So if you are going with definitions here, then I don't think you have much to work with.
 
Now, if you are going with "its a different system" - that LDS & non-LDS Christians to being Christian is not the same as LDS & non-LDS to being Mormon, then, again, I have to say the two systems are not that different.  And more importantly the goals and motivations involved in each are identical.  For the LDS Church to justify its actions in one system but denounce those motivations in others in another system, while perhaps possible, should not simply be granted without review and testing.  This is the point of the OP.
 
 
 

I like the argument you present here. However, When "Christian" denominations deny the title "Christian" to other groups, it is not to differentiate between the two differing manner of belief in Christ, it is to state that the other does not believe/follow Christ. When the LDS Church attempts to deny the title "Mormon" to the off shoot group it is to differentiate the two groups, not to make a statement about the beliefs of the other group. When someone states that they are Christian, an unbeliever would assume that that person has a belief that includes the New Testament as a book of divine scripture. They would not assume that that person adheres to the Catholic, Protestant, Evangelic, Mormon or any other belief. The unbeliever would clarify which denomination the person belonged to. The necessity of segregating LDS/Mormon from the title Christian is not there.

 
 I think I understand what you are saying here.  If so, I would say that differentiating between groups is fine, but not commandeering what is obviously a common ground and term legitimately applicable to both groups - aka "Mormon".  Christian denominations do it with "Christian", why can't the LDS Church do it with "Mormon".  Again, way back at the top of this response I point out that in the public mind, while there is confusion about the groupings, polygamy et al. Is already a part of the public concept of "Mormon" and thus is already functioning with a larger definition than the LDS Church and it's members want.  It is the LDS leadership (and their members in-line) that are trying to squeeze out the polygamists and off-shoots from their place already in the public idea of "Mormon".  Why?  And why should that be allowed?  And how do the answers to those questions not affect LDS denunciation of Christians trying to keep LDS out of "Christian"?
 

That's a clever argument, but ultimately a specious one.
 
You are making an apples-and-oranges comparison.  The two situations are not parallel.
 
A Christian is a follower of Christ.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and probably dishonest, to claim it as the exclusive property of any group, or of any one interpretation of Christ's message.
 
A Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a single organic institution.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and possibly dishonest, to claim that it denotes participation in some big, vague, amorphous "movement."
 
ETA: Besides all that, there's something else you are missing.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ isn't asking other Christians to accept us into their "club."  For them to admit that we are a Christian Church is to acknowledge a rather simple, easily demonstrable and not logically disputable fact.  That's all.

 
 
Thank you for the compliment.
 
However, claiming that something is an orange in difference to a tangerine, does not make them completely different, in look, in flavor, in classification.
 
Let me use your own words (not against you) but to enhance my position versus yours.
 
Reversed quote: "A [Mormon] is a follower of [Joseph Smith's restoration].  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and probably dishonest, to claim it as the exclusive property of any group, or of any one interpretation of [Joseph's restoration]."
 
As for:
"A Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a single organic institution.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and possibly dishonest, to claim that it denotes participation in some big, vague, amorphous "movement.""
 
You are "stacking the deck" or neglecting reality, just as I warned against in the OP.  The facts are, just like with any religious movement, as time passes there are more and more groups that identify with the origin of the movement and the movement itself, and Mormonism is no exception.  The LDS leadership and membership do not seem to see their history in light of the history of all religions.  Mormonism is yet relatively young and the LDS Church has certainly dominated the "airwaves".  But that does nothing to the fact that there are people and groups that are not part of the LDS Church but are still followers of Joseph Smith and believe they are part of his restoration, they believe in the Book of Mormon (as said above by another this should be enough, certainly in light of the fact that the name "Mormon" was originally given to those who adhered to the Book of Mormon).
 
Back to using your own words:
 
Reversed quote:
 
"ETA: Besides all that, there's something else you are missing.
 
The [Mormon off-shoots are not] asking [the LDS Church] to accept [them] into their "[membership]."  For [the LDS Church] to admit that [they] are [a type of Mormons] is to acknowledge a rather simple, easily demonstrable and not logically disputable fact.  That's all."
 

Okay Joshua has been straightened out now.
Where can we all go to now for the BBQ?

Not hardly, although I am interested in the BBQ.

[Joshua Valentine]

Joshua, the board software apparently does not like all upper-case words in topic titles.  If you typed LDS it will change it to Lds.  The only way to get around this is to put extra spaces in there: L D S  .  I am not sure if it will let you put periods in there: L.D.S.  And only Mods can edit titles, but they don't often do so. 

 

Thank you very much for the info.  I appreciate it.

[Joshua Valentine]

Only if being a schizophrenic is fine.

 

 

It's not schizophrenic. Maybe a bit odd, but it's fine. Who am I to tell you that you can't self identify as any or all of that?

 

A complete side note:

 

It is a common misuse in at least American culture to say "schizophrenic" when meaning multiple personality disorder or, in this case, having multiple (distinct) positions.  Multiple personality disorder or having multiple personalities is analogous to many other situations having to do with multiples but, unfortunately doesn't have a quick single word reference like "schizo" or "schizophrenia".  Also, schizophrenia is a disorder in which the ability to discern what is real and what is not is inhibited or skewed.  Schizophrenia has to do with reality-recognition and multiple personality disorder has to do with multiple personalities.

 

Side note over, thanks!

[The Nehor]

As I said in the OP, to define "Mormon" as only a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is self-serving or reality-denying.  See more below

And as I said in my rebuttal you are completely and utterly wrong.

[The Nehor]

A complete side note:

 

It is a common misuse in at least American culture to say "schizophrenic" when meaning multiple personality disorder or, in this case, having multiple (distinct) positions.  Multiple personality disorder or having multiple personalities is analogous to many other situations having to do with multiples but, unfortunately doesn't have a quick single word reference like "schizo" or "schizophrenia".  Also, schizophrenia is a disorder in which the ability to discern what is real and what is not is inhibited or skewed.  Schizophrenia has to do with reality-recognition and multiple personality disorder has to do with multiple personalities.

 

Side note over, thanks!

Yes, I was clearly making a serious diagnosis and without your vital correction this whole thread would be polluted by my unscientific approach to saying someone is insane.

Speaking of mental health where do you fall on the autism spectrum?

[Avatar4321]

I see no reason to blur or change definitions because our enemies want to be able to smear us

[Bobbieaware]

I think you should go one step further with this;

What makes a Methodist a Methodist?

Their unique view on Christianity.

What makes a Pentecostal a Pentecostal?

Their unique view on Christianity.

What makes a Mormon a Mormon?

Their unique view on Christianity.

As much as Methodists may say that other churches are Christian, they would not say they are Methodists. The same goes with Pentecostals, and of course, the same goes for Mormons.

My friend is a Methodist, but he would not want to be a fundamental Methodist or another kind.

But here's the crux of the issue: Virtually all non-LDS Christians share much in common when their common beliefs are compared to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They do not believe in living apostles and prophets, continuing revelation, an open cannon of scripture, the Book of Mormon, other books of scripture beyond the Bible, Christ in America, the New Jerusalem to be built in America, the preexistence of the human spirit, the Gospel preached to the dead, salvation for the dead, three degrees of heavenly glory, the Melchizedek Piresthooh held by others beyond Christ, the importance of genealogical and family history work, temples and temple work, eternal marriage, eternal families, the deification of man, and on and on. So if being considered genuinely Christian requires the rejection the distinctive beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then the non-LDS true Christians and the Latter-day Saints are not.

But this sword cuts both ways: If we Latter-day Saints wanted to be snarky we could say the professed Christians who reject the distinctive doctrines and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints are the ones who are not truely Christian. But we don't because, in spite of our differences, we believe the non-LDS Christians enjoy the influence of the spirit of Christ in their lives and that they receive genuine spiritual benefit when they sincerely follow the inspired teachings found in the Bible. In other words, because we Latter-day Saints don't believe we have an exclusive monopoly on all Christian truth we acknowledge non-LDS Christians are Christians too.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Flyonthewall]

Let's say faith group A exists. After a while a group within faith group A decides: we reject your leadership, and we will practice the very thing that would get one excommunicated from your group... but we still want to be called group A.

Does that make sense?

They can call themselves group A all they want but they have chosen to break away from group A.

Just because they call themselves group A does not make it so.

Should we call Protestants Catholic? That is the comparison to look at.

[Jacob]

I think I understand what you are saying here.  If so, I would say that differentiating between groups is fine, but not commandeering what is obviously a common ground and term legitimately applicable to both groups - aka "Mormon".  Christian denominations do it with "Christian", why can't the LDS Church do it with "Mormon".  Again, way back at the top of this response I point out that in the public mind, while there is confusion about the groupings, polygamy et al. Is already a part of the public concept of "Mormon" and thus is already functioning with a larger definition than the LDS Church and it's members want.  It is the LDS leadership (and their members in-line) that are trying to squeeze out the polygamists and off-shoots from their place already in the public idea of "Mormon".  Why?  And why should that be allowed?  And how do the answers to those questions not affect LDS denunciation of Christians trying to keep LDS out of "Christian"?

 

There is a need for differentiation when using the term "Mormon", but not for the use of the term "Christian". The reason is that no one would jump to the assumption that a "Christian" belonged to any one of the specific "Christian" denominations. When the term "Mormon" is used, the general assumption is that the individual or group being referenced is LDS. At some point in the future there may no longer be the need for the differentiation when using the term "Mormon", but currently the term is too strongly viewed as relating to the LDS Church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Let's say faith group A exists. After a while a group within faith group A decides: we reject your leadership, and we will practice the very thing that would get one excommunicated from your group... but we still want to be called group A.

Does that make sense?

They can call themselves group A all they want but they have chosen to break away from group A.

Just because they call themselves group A does not make it so.

Should we call Protestants Catholic? That is the comparison to look at.

Let's say that group A exists. After a while the leadership of group A decides to stop practicing (at least officially) a principle that has been taught for years is the pinnacle of the faith and required for salvation. A subset of group A continues to practice the principle relying on revelation from previous leaders of group A. The leadership of group A eventually kicks these people out of the group. These people still identify as group A and see the leadership of group A as the ones that have changed.

[thesometimesaint]

Let's say that group A exists. After a while the leadership of group A decides to stop practicing (at least officially) a principle that has been taught for years is the pinnacle of the faith and required for salvation. A subset of group A continues to practice the principle relying on revelation from previous leaders of group A. The leadership of group A eventually kicks these people out of the group. These people still identify as group A and see the leadership of group A as the ones that have changed.

 

That only works for one generation. The next generations have no association with the previous one. IOW. No living LDS practices polygamy under the direction of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We excommunicate them as soon as they are found out.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That only works for one generation. The next generations have no association with the previous one. IOW. No living LDS practices polygamy under the direction of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We excommunicate them as soon as they are found out.

 

What we had was a split. But the FLDS weren't the ones who changed. We did. We have no more right to the name Mormon than they do. They believe in the Book of Mormon. They believe in the restoration of the gospel. They have been called Mormons from the beginning just like us.

[thesometimesaint]

What we had was a split. But the FLDS weren't the ones who changed. We did. We have no more right to the name Mormon than they do. They believe in the Book of Mormon. They believe in the restoration of the gospel. They have been called Mormons from the beginning just like us.

 

The FLDS do not have origins in this Church. They started no earlier than 1912.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints

 

The FLDS traces its claim to spiritual authority to accounts, starting with a statement published in 1912 by Lorin C. Woolley, of a purported 1886 divine revelation to then–LDS Church President John Taylor. They see this 1886 revelation as precluding validity of the 1890 Manifesto against new plural marriages by church members, issued by Wilford Woodruff, whom the LDS Church recognizes as Taylor's successor.^[38] After the formal abandonment of plural marriage by the LDS Church, many members around Short Creek and elsewhere continued, and even solemnized, plural marriages. In 1904, the LDS Church issued the Second Manifesto and eventually excommunicated those who continued to solemnize or enter into new plural marriages.

 

More importantly few members of the FLDS were ever members of the LDS, What you are claiming is the equivalent of that the Protestants are Roman Catholics because they both believe in the Bible.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The FLDS do not have origins in this Church. They started no earlier than 1912.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints

 

The FLDS traces its claim to spiritual authority to accounts, starting with a statement published in 1912 by Lorin C. Woolley, of a purported 1886 divine revelation to then–LDS Church President John Taylor. They see this 1886 revelation as precluding validity of the 1890 Manifesto against new plural marriages by church members, issued by Wilford Woodruff, whom the LDS Church recognizes as Taylor's successor.^[38] After the formal abandonment of plural marriage by the LDS Church, many members around Short Creek and elsewhere continued, and even solemnized, plural marriages. In 1904, the LDS Church issued the Second Manifesto and eventually excommunicated those who continued to solemnize or enter into new plural marriages.

 

More importantly few members of the FLDS were ever members of the LDS, What you are claiming is the equivalent of that the Protestants are Roman Catholics because they both believe in the Bible.

I'm not conflating FLDS with LDS. We are discussing the term Mormon. By your logic, when the Southern Baptists split off because of the issue of slavery, you are saying they shouldn't have hung on to the term Baptist? 

[thesometimesaint]

They changed their name to the Southern Baptist Convention. They don't use their name to confuse others.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

They changed their name to the Southern Baptist Convention. They don't use their name to confuse others.

And we have Fundamentalist Mormons and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Are you saying these people are intentionally trying to confuse others?

[Flyonthewall]

Let's say that group A exists. After a while the leadership of group A decides to stop practicing (at least officially) a principle that has been taught for years is the pinnacle of the faith and required for salvation. A subset of group A continues to practice the principle relying on revelation from previous leaders of group A. The leadership of group A eventually kicks these people out of the group. These people still identify as group A and see the leadership of group A as the ones that have changed.

Group A received revelation from God that a principal was to be stopped. The subset of group A decides they no longer wish to continue with group A because they wish to continue the practice that was stopped.

Thinking Group A leadership has strayed they then form not-A. Group not-A is... not group A.

The practice that was stopped was NOT a foundational principal, nor was it required for salvation as not all practiced it nor were all required to practice it.

[Russell C McGregor]

Thank you for the compliment.

 

However, claiming that something is an orange in difference to a tangerine, does not make them completely different, in look, in flavor, in classification.

 

Let me use your own words (not against you) but to enhance my position versus yours.

 

Reversed quote: "A [Mormon] is a follower of [Joseph Smith's restoration].  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and probably dishonest, to claim it as the exclusive property of any group, or of any one interpretation of [Joseph's restoration]."

If the only way to "enhance" your position is to make demonstrably counterfactual assertions, then it isn't very strong to begin with.

Nobody was ever called a "Mormon" until the Church was organised. Those who leave the Church, either individually or in groups, are properly called "ex-Mormons" or "former Mormons." Likewise those who are excommunicated.

The Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, rightly refuse to call themselves Mormons. Other apostate groups try to claim the label for themselves, but their arguments are self-serving. (I chose that phrase quite intentionally.)

 

As for:

"A Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a single organic institution.  That's what the word means.  It is incorrect, and possibly dishonest, to claim that it denotes participation in some big, vague, amorphous "movement.""

 

You are "stacking the deck" or neglecting reality, just as I warned against in the OP.

Yes, I noticed that you tried to pre-emptively poison the well against responses to your bogus argument. Please take note that your rhetorical tactics are not as successful as you'd like them to be.

And "neglecting" is a rather non-standard way to spell "reflecting." The reality us that the term "Mormon" is coextensive with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The facts are, just like with any religious movement, as time passes there are more and more groups that identify with the origin of the movement and the movement itself, and Mormonism is no exception.

You declare that those are "the facts," but it's really just a particular POV.

Which you evidently find useful.

 

The LDS leadership and membership do not seem to see their history in light of the history of all religions.  Mormonism is yet relatively young and the LDS Church has certainly dominated the "airwaves".  But that does nothing to the fact that there are people and groups that are not part of the LDS Church but are still followers of Joseph Smith and believe they are part of his restoration, they believe in the Book of Mormon (as said above by another this should be enough, certainly in light of the fact that the name "Mormon" was originally given to those who adhered to the Book of Mormon).

Thank you for your opinion.

Because that's all it is.

The normal usage of the word "Mormon" applies to the Church and its members. The apostates for whom you advocate are trying to ride our coat-tails.

 

Back to using your own words:

 

Reversed quote:

 

"ETA: Besides all that, there's something else you are missing.

 

The [Mormon off-shoots are not] asking [the LDS Church] to accept [them] into their "[membership]."  For [the LDS Church] to admit that [they] are [a type of Mormons] is to acknowledge a rather simple, easily demonstrable and not logically disputable fact.  That's all."

It's a nifty trick, but it ends up asserting a false claim.

As a matter of interest, it has never failed to amuse me that all anti-Mormons take the same stance regarding this issue.

 

1. They single-mindedly attack the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.
2. As part of that overall strategy, they wholeheartedly support the claims of the various apostate groups;
3. Including when those claims are mutually exclusive.
4. But that is merely a tactic, as is proven by their overall strategy, to wit:

They attack Joseph Smith and the Church that he founded.

 

They attack Brigham Young and the Church that he led into the West.

 

They attack Wilford Woodruff and the Church over which he presided.

 

They attack Gordon B. Hinckley and the Church over which he presided.

 

They attack Thomas S. Monson and the Church over which he presides.

 

And every time an apostate group splinters off, from 1844 Nauvoo to the present day, they refuse to go after that group, but remain focused upon attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; thus demonstrating, despite their arguments, that they know it to be the one and only church that Joseph founded in 1830.

 

And you know it too, don't you, Joshua?

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

And every time an apostate group splinters off, from 1844 Nauvoo to the present day, they refuse to go after that group, but remain focused upon attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; thus demonstrating, despite their arguments, that they know it to be the one and only church that Joseph founded in 1830.

 

And you know it too, don't you, Joshua?

And that is really the nub or the end of the discussion. No other church but ours was set up by JS. IOW JS' church that he set up is the only church that is referred to as Mormon.

[DragonLancer]

[i saw the lower case LDS too late, and couldn't find a way to edit it.  I apologize for the error. Please let me know if there is a way to edit topic titles.  Thanks!]

 

This topic is not about whether or not Mormons are Christians.  It is not about whether Mormonism is a Christian religion.

 

It is about whether and how the LDS leadership undermines its own position, and that of the membership - that other Christian groups should recognize it, them, as Christians - when it refuses to recognize other Mormon groups as Mormons.

 

Following are statements made by the LDS Church:

 

1) A recent news story referred to fugitive Warren Jeffs as a “fundamentalist Mormon” and “leader of a polygamist breakaway Mormon sect.”

 

Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To refer to them as “Mormon” is inaccurate.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/fundamentalist-mormons

 

2) Fact:

    There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/fundamentalist-mormons

 

3) Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy, especially focusing on groups in Southern Utah, Arizona and Texas, have used terms such as "fundamentalist Mormons," "Mormon sect" and "polygamous Mormons" to refer to those who practice polygamy.

    There is no such thing as a "polygamous" Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamous-mormons

 

4) "...it is estimated that approximately 30,000 Mormons live in polygamous households in Utah."

Fact:

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Groups that practice polygamy have nothing to do whatsoever with the Church and should not be referred to as Mormons.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/30-000-mormon-polygamists

 

5) There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

-President Gordon B. Hinckley

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng

 

All of these official statements made by the LDS Church deny the use of “Mormon” when referring to polygamous or fundamentalist groups.  How is this to be justified when the LDS Church and its members decry Christian groups that refuse to refer to LDS as Christians or the LDS Church as a Christian church?

 

In all of these quotes the term “Mormon” is being defined as a member of the LDS Church.  But that is at least an outdated definition - denying the reality of the existence and legitimacy of other groups that embrace Joseph Smith’s restoration and scriptures.  It is certainly self-serving, especially if used to differentiate between the “Mormon” issue and the “Christian” issue.

 

Why do Christians deny that Mormons are Christians?  Why does the LDS Church deny that off-shoot Mormons are Mormons?

 

See the following (especially in bold):

 

6) The Associated Press style guide tells its reporters that the term Mormon “is not properly applied” to the other churches that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith's death. It should be obvious why the AP has adopted that policy. It is widely understood that the word “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sends out “Mormon missionaries,” sponsors the “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and builds “Mormon temples.” Associating the term ‘Mormon’ with polygamists blurs what should be a crystal-clear line of distinction between organizations that are entirely separate.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/-mormons-and-polygamy

 

While the terms LDS and Mormon are not brands in the commercial sense, these terms reflect the identity, reputation and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS Church has the right and expectation that the use of these terms will convey certain impressions to those who become aware of them. This is known in the business world as brand equity and in the words of NetMBA.com it "is an intangible asset that depends on associations made by the consumer."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700224488/Adoption-of-FLDS-name-is-akin-to-identity-theft.html?pg=all

 

Christians don’t want the public (consumers) to confuse Mormonism for Christianity.  LDS leadership doesn’t want the public to confuse Mormon off-shoots for Mormonism or the LDS Church.

 

Insofar as the LDS Church denies off-shoot groups the name “Mormon”, the LDS Church undermines its call for non-LDS Christians to accept it as Christian.  In nearly every way that the LDS Church justifies denying “Mormon” to off-shoots, it justifies Christians denying “Christian” to Mormonism.

 

According to scholars of high stature such as the emminent Bart Ehrman, Christianity is something that was very diverse theologically in ancient times before the advent of "Orthodoxy," and is certainly not owned in any sense by those that became the "Orthodox."  The orthodox were previously what Ehrman classifies as "proto-Orthodox" which was just another group of Christians at that point.  Later, they just happened to "win" the theological debate and silenced their opponents.  They are certainly not representative, necessarily, theologically, of the Christians of the first two centuries.  They only theologically represent those that "won."  And history is written by the winners.  Therefore, just because non-Mormon Christians think that they own the name, as if they are an exclusive club who can decide who is a part of the club and who are to be left out of the club, they are the theological descendants of the proto-Orthodox who were "just another" group of Christians at the time.  Therefore, Sorry, you don't own the name, and you have nothing to say about other people's use of the name.  It doesn't matter that you think you own the name in your "club."  Historically, you do not.