Lds Undermining Calls To Acceptance As Christian

[Tsuzuki]

The Strangites are still around, and they consider themselves Mormons. And I remember a time when I was younger when the Brighamite church didn't want to be called "Mormons", and was very insistent on "Latter-day Saints" instead. Now that "Mormon" has brand value, they want to claim it for themselves, but it's not just theirs.

[carbon dioxide]

The Strangites are still around, and they consider themselves Mormons. And I remember a time when I was younger when the Brighamite church didn't want to be called "Mormons", and was very insistent on "Latter-day Saints" instead. Now that "Mormon" has brand value, they want to claim it for themselves, but it's not just theirs.

Perhaps this is why we should call ourselves Latter Day Saints or LDS rather than Mormon.  I don't mind the word "Mormon" but it is not specific enough as other groups can call themselves it.  When someone tells me they are Christian, it is like asking someone what nationality they are and they respond with "human."   Really does not tell me a whole lot.

[Tsuzuki]

Perhaps this is why we should call ourselves Latter Day Saints or LDS rather than Mormon.  I don't mind the word "Mormon" but it is not specific enough as other groups can call themselves it.  When someone tells me they are Christian, it is like asking someone what nationality they are and they respond with "human."   Really does not tell me a whole lot.

The Strangites also call themselves Latter Day Saints. The hyphenated "Latter-day Saints" might be the one you're looking for.

[thatjimguy]

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.

 

Non-LDS churches certainly differ from us quite a bit, but I think they differ from each other. One way they differ is pertaining to salvation, which is no small thing. Technically, since so many of them differ concerning salvation, how could they not say that any of the others are not Christian and go fight against them as well? If Mormons did not exist as the whipping dogs of different doctrines, I doubt, in general, they would be as chummy with each other.

 

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/images/denom.comp.enlarged.jpg

Edited August 28, 2015 by thatjimguy

[thatjimguy]

 

 

 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.

 

 

We see them as Christians, but not Mormons just as other Christian denominations consider other churches Christian, but not of their fold because of their differences in some form of doctrine only found in that denomination. So no, people may be Christian, but not Mormon or any other denomination other than the one the are in.

 

The differences between Christian denominations may not be as numerous as the LDS, but just as polarizing! Technically, every Christian denomination should be going at it full force against each other with just as much vigor as they do us!

[saemo]

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.)

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.

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

Which you evidently find useful.

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.

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.

• They single-mindedly attack the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.
• As part of that overall strategy, they wholeheartedly support the claims of the various apostate groups;
• Including when those claims are mutually exclusive.
• 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?

The followers of Brigham Young increased in notoriety because of Young's institution of polygamy, which the other groups, who did not follow Young, rejected. The Utah Church keeps itself in the public eye, purposefully, the other branches of Mormonism do not. They don't run nation wide advertisements, they don't pay for ads on Google and social media, they don't request to be involved in national religious committees. People are aware of the Utah Mormon church because it makes itself aware.

I know of two people who left the Utah Mormon Church, for other Mormon branches, looking to stay within a Mormon framework, but not in with the Utah church. They still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, who restored the right religion. They still believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture. They just don't believe that Brigham Young was the rightful leader after Smith's murder, and they don't believe the religion that is headquartered in SLC, is the church that Joseph Smith founded. They still consider themselves Mormon.

Edited August 28, 2015 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

The followers of Brigham Young increased in notoriety because of Young's institution of polygamy, which the other groups, who did not follow Young, rejected. The Utah Church keeps itself in the public eye, purposefully, the other branches of Mormonism do not. They don't run nation wide advertisements, they don't pay for ads on Google and social media, they don't request to be involved in national religious committees. People are aware of the Utah Mormon church because it makes itself aware.

I know of two people who left the Utah Mormon Church, for other Mormon branches, looking to stay within a Mormon framework, but not in with the Utah church. They still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, who restored the right religion. They still believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture. They just don't believe that Brigham Young was the rightful leader after Smith's murder, and they don't believe the religion that is headquartered in SLC, is the church that Joseph Smith founded. They still consider themselves Mormon.

 

Brigham Young didn't institute polygamy. He just made it public information.

 

Whether we or other groups run advertisements or not is irrelevant. BTW We're not supposed to hide our light under a candle.

 

We're not the Utah Mormon Church. The very least you could do is call us by our real name; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you appreciate being called The Papist Church of Rome?

 

We have the Article of Faith # 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[saemo]

Brigham Young didn't institute polygamy. He just made it public information.

Whether we or other groups run advertisements or not is irrelevant. BTW We're not supposed to hide our light under a candle.

We're not the Utah Mormon Church. The very least you could do is call us by our real name; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you appreciate being called The Papist Church of Rome?

We have the Article of Faith # 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Historically speaking, I don't think it is clear who instituted polygamy as a doctrine. There are reasons the Mormon groups did not follow Young, and his support for polygamy was one of those reasons, if not the top reason.

Also, historically speaking, Utah church is not a jab at anything. You'll find the use in plenty of historical documents and books. When speaking of the various Mormon groups that came into existence at the succession crisis, following Smith's murder, it is only in that context that I use Utah church.

Papist Church of Rome, lol. I didn't say the Sex Cult of Utah did I? The Roman Church is perfectly acceptable.

BTW, I don't care that Mormons run ads. The point was brought up that the other Mormon groups are unknown. There are reasons they are not known. They don't seek to be known. Whether or not you think that is proper, is not the point.

Edited August 29, 2015 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

Historically speaking D&C 132 was authored by Joseph Smith whom introduced it to Brigham Young. Whom BTW wasn't all pleased by the idea.

 

There was a struggle for whom was the lead the Church after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. But not over polygamy. IE; Emma stayed behind. She was flat out worn out over her many trials of faith along with the deaths of many of her children, husband, and brother-in-law. She wanted her son to become president of the Church not out of doctrinal reasons.

 

There are plenty of books that call the Roman Catholic Church all types of names. Martin Luther has some pretty choice ones. I object to calling your church by those names. Fair play would say you return the favor. So call us by our legal name. Is that too much to ask? BTW I personally prefer to be called a Saint, but have no real objection to being called a Mormon. He was a good guy after all.

 

Personally I don't care if they advertise or not. Most are very small. So I can imagine the cost of such advertising could be prohibitive. Doctrinal differences aside.

[saemo]

Historically speaking D&C 132 was authored by Joseph Smith whom introduced it to Brigham Young. Whom BTW wasn't all pleased by the idea.

 

There was a struggle for whom was the lead the Church after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. But not over polygamy. IE; Emma stayed behind. She was flat out worn out over her many trials of faith along with the deaths of many of her children, husband, and brother-in-law. She wanted her son to become president of the Church not out of doctrinal reasons.

Yes, I know this is what LDS are taught. I'm not convinced it is what actually happened.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

 

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.

 

 

That part of my comment was directed at Avatar4321, not at you The Nehor.

Also, I did respond to your rebuttal. Why didn't you respond to it - at all?

(Maybe it was just a quote bubble editing error)

 

The following is what I said to your rebuttal (with added bold and italics).

 

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

Edited September 2, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[Joshua Valentine]

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?

 

The Nehor, I am acquainted with your "biting" humor and sarcastic wit.  I enjoy it.

 

Just to be clear, I meant no offense.  It was simply an FYI for what I see many people do.  I don't know you, The Nehor, well enough to assume you know such a thing and were just using it colloquially and for convenience.  I will keep this in mind in the future.

 

I think it may have been best to leave off the last sentence, though, as it seems to go from biting humor and sarcastic offense to just biting and offensive (even if to no one other than those with autism  ) and a legit infraction of Board Rule #2.

[Tacenda]

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?

Man, what is in the air lately, first R and then CD and now you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I know this is what LDS are taught. I'm not convinced it is what actually happened.

 

The documentation is conclusive. If you deny it, the burden of proof is on you.

[carbon dioxide]

Yes, I know this is what LDS are taught. I'm not convinced it is what actually happened.

 

Unlike the issue of banning of blacks to the priesthood, I think its pretty conclusive the doctrine and practice of polygamy started through Joseph Smith. 

[saemo]

The documentation is conclusive. If you deny it, the burden of proof is on you.

Well, there is plenty of documentation from Joseph Smith himself, teaching against polygamy, and at one time, the D&C taught against polygamy. It wasn't Joseph Smith who changed the D&C, by removing a previous teaching against polygamy, and adding in section 132. That was done years after his murder, by Brigham Young, who did conclusively practice and preach in favor of polygamy.

So, either Joseph Smith didn't support polygamy, or he secretly did, while preaching against it, repeatedly. Making him a liar and a hypocrite. If I were seeking to support Joseph Smith, I would go with, that he did not practice or support polygamy. There's been good documentation published by the RLDS (CoC), that supports this view.

The documentation that supports Brigham Young's account, diaries, etc., is much more difficult to reconcile with the historic accounts of Nauvoo, the scripture that Joseph Smith endorsed, against polygamy, and his opposition to polygamy. I don't know how to be a supporter of Smith, in this view, as in this view, he was preaching one thing and doing another. I'm trying here, to be able to see how LDS reconcile and support the two different historical views.

So, since I wasn't there, and it all seems rather convoluted, I go with, he could have been practicing polygamy, or he may not have. But I don't see it as conclusive, either way.

Edited September 3, 2015 by saemo

[Stargazer]

I consider myself a Luciferian non-Christian Mormon Thelemite. Historical claims aside, I accept all the core doctrines of the LDS church except for the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

 

The irony of it is that the doctrine of vicarious atonement (with Christ as the Redeemer) is THE core doctrine of the LDS Church.

[DonBradley]

 

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.

 

 

Amen, Buckeye. To presume to define someone else's spiritual identity for them is, to my mind, the very height of arrogance.

 

Don

[Stargazer]

Amen, Buckeye. To presume to define someone else's spiritual identity for them is, to my mind, the very height of arrogance.

 

Don

Well, I must be feeling rather arrogant at the moment, because I don't feel charitable enough to grant the name "Mormon" to the Community of Christ, the Strangites, the Temple Lot, the FLDS, or anyone else but the CofJCofLDS.

Makes me feel guilty as heck, too. But those are my true feelings. Perhaps I need to lighten up, but every time the news media talks about the FLDS and its antics while identifying it as "Mormon" it really gets my dander up. Makes me want to go out in the street and break things. I want no association, even accidental, with that group.

Grrrrr.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Stargazer

[Tsuzuki]

The irony of it is that the doctrine of vicarious atonement (with Christ as the Redeemer) is THE core doctrine of the LDS Church.

Well, I don't believe in it, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[theplains]

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day

Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the

Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the

Fulness of Times.  He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when

Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel

of the ages." (Deseret News, Church News section, Salt Lake City, Utah, week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

 

Various religions also have their own ideas on the true character of Jesus Christ.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

 

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day

Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the

Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the

Fulness of Times.  He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when

Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel

of the ages." (Deseret News, Church News section, Salt Lake City, Utah, week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

 

Various religions also have their own ideas on the true character of Jesus Christ.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

This is, of course, the boilerplate anti-Mormon abuse of that quote.

 

It seems to come so naturally to some people...

 

Yes, we worship the Christ who is revealed in ancient and modern Scripture, not the Christ of uninspired creedal formulations.

[theplains]

Yes, we worship the Christ who is revealed in ancient and modern Scripture, not the Christ of uninspired creedal formulations.

 

Thank you Russell.  

 

I found these teachings of the LDS Church which show some peculiar aspects about

Jesus.  He was not always God but also had to progress into a God.

 

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence 

which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 

(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10).

 

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to 

Godhood, and in the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS 

President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

 

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, 

in fulfillment of the promise and appointment" (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, 

The Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512). 

 

"The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he 

is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26)" [1997 Gospel

Principles]..

 

"Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called

Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27) [1997 Gospel Principles teaching

that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers].

 

The above teachings are not in the scriptures.  D&C 93:21 does not mention a heavenly

mother. Neither does Abraham 3:27 say Lucifer is Christ's brother.

 

Is this the Jesus you worship?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

"I found these teachings of the LDS Church"

As in copied and pasted them from a website you then didn't give credit to?

[thesometimesaint]

 

Thank you Russell.  

 

I found these teachings of the LDS Church which show some peculiar aspects about

Jesus.  He was not always God but also had to progress into a God.

 

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence 

which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 

(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10).

 

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to 

Godhood, and in the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS 

President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

 

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, 

in fulfillment of the promise and appointment" (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, 

The Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512). 

 

"The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he 

is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26)" [1997 Gospel

Principles]..

 

"Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called

Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27) [1997 Gospel Principles teaching

that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers].

 

The above teachings are not in the scriptures.  D&C 93:21 does not mention a heavenly

mother. Neither does Abraham 3:27 say Lucifer is Christ's brother.

 

Is this the Jesus you worship?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

Yes.